|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2004-01-05 12:46:00
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Doug Rabson wrote:
> I think the key problem was the use of '\1' but I didn't realise that
> until I started messing around with -E (which selects an alternative
> regexp expression syntax). It should be possible to come up with
> something that works on both versions of sed.
How about this?
sed "s/\(==\|--\|\+\+\|\*\*\)[0-9]\{1,5\}\(==\|--\|\+\+\|\*\*\) //" |
While we're at it, can these lines be removed:
# Reduce some libc incompatibility
sed "s/ __getsockname / getsockname /" |
sed "s/ __sigaction / sigaction /" |
sed "s/ __GI___/ __/"
now that Jeremy did the name canonicalisation?
N
|