Re: sharutils-4.15.2

On 7/25/25 11:23 AM, "Douglas R. Reno" ([email protected] via blfs-dev 
Mailing List) wrote:
> On 7/25/25 11:11 AM, Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing 
> List) wrote:
>> On 7/24/25 11:05 PM, "Douglas R. Reno" ([email protected] via blfs-dev 
>> Mailing List) wrote:
>>> On 7/24/25 10:48 PM, Randy McMurchy ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing List) 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/24/2025 10:08 PM, Randy McMurchy ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing 
>>>> List) wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> The sharutils-4.15.2 package is broken with GCC 15. Here's a fix:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-utils/2025-03/msg00000.html
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll have to run autoreconf after installing the 3 patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone can combine all 3 into one gcc-15.x patch.
>>>>>
>>>> Better still would be to combine the 3 sed commands and the echo
>>>> command with the 3 patches all into one sharutils-4.15.2_fixes.patch
>>>> (or whatever the naming conventions for patches are now.)
>>>>
>>>> Then it's just a patch and autoreconf -i added to the book.
>>>
>>> Hi Randy,
>>>
>>> With the amount of seds required for this package already, I think a consolidated 
>>> patch is definitely the best approach as well! Bruce, what do you think?
>>>
>>> I just ran into an issue building GNU Time as well (the Time-1.9 page in the book) 
>>> because it uses K&R style function declarations. If Bruce is on board with the 
>>> patch approach I'll file tickets for both later
>>>
>>> Thank you for the report and the solutions!
>>
>> I wonder if sharutils should be archived.  It has not been updated in 10 years.  
>> The only place it is referenced is in lynx for uudecode where it is optional. 
>> Checking Arch Linux, uudecode/sharutils is not mentioned as a dependency for lynx.
>>
>> That said, I created https://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/21884#ticket to 
>> address the issue.
>>
>>   -- Bruce
>>
> I've thought about the archiving perspective as well. The biggest concern that I have 
> is that it's required for POSIX compliance. When I was taking a Linux class in 
> college a few years back (2020...), we were also using sharutils in class to use 
> uudecode and uuencode, but I don't know how many people are going to end up 
> encountering information which they need to use uudecode/encode on in the near 
> future. It can apparently be used by Automake during it's test suite, but that 
> shouldn't hold us up from a potential archival.
> 
> Does anyone know of a mailing list where you still have to use uuencode/decode or 
> shar/unshar?
> 
> It might be worth considering archiving it after 12.4 is out, and including a note in 
> the release announcement asking users to contact us if they still use it. If we do 
> remove it though we will also need to remove our notes about being POSIX compliant. 
> On that note, we should also update our POSIX information in the LFS books to mention 
> POSIX.1-2024, and probably check in that to see if sharutils is still mentioned and 
> if there's any other changes we might need to make.

I asked google and got:

"According to the available information, the
sharutils suite, which includes shar, unshar, uuencode, and uudecode, is not listed 
as a mandatory or optional utility within the POSIX.1-2024 (Issue 8) standard. The 
Open Group Base Specifications, Issue 8, which is the current iteration of the POSIX 
standard, defines a set of standard utilities that promote application portability 
across UNIX system environments. A thorough review of the listed mandatory and 
optional utilities in the standard does not include sharutils."

I am in favor of archiving it now.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page