Debian Bug report logs - #1019335
Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Toggle useless messages

Message #3 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 16:14:41 +0200

Package: grep
Version: 3.8-1
Severity: normal

Hi,

I see egrep and fgrep have started throwing deprecation warnings:

$ egrep
egrep: warning: egrep is obsolescent; using grep -E

I understand that they have been dubbed deprecated for quite a while:
(manpage of an older grep version)

   In  addition,  the  variant  programs egrep, fgrep and rgrep are
   the same as grep -E, grep -F, and grep -r, respectively.  These
   variants are deprecated, but are provided for backward
   compatibility.

This deprecation will need a LOT of effort to weed out in probably
1000s of packages, while in practise we'll likely never be able to
really remove them from the package since users will expect egrep and
fgrep to be present on any normal unix system, both for interactive
use and to be able to execute 3rd party sh scripts.

I suggest removing the deprecation notices, and keep egrep and fgrep
around indefinitely.

(On a side node, the deprecation notice quoted above also mentions
"rgrep", which is no longer mentioned in the manpage, but it's still
there in the package, not throwing a deprecation warning.)

Christoph

Message #6 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>

To: 1019335@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#1019335: Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 16:45:34 +0200

POSIX has these notes:

RATIONALE

    This grep has been enhanced in an upwards-compatible way to provide the exact functionality of the historical egrep and fgrep commands as well. It was the clear intention of the standard developers to consolidate the three greps into a single command.

    The old egrep and fgrep commands are likely to be supported for many years to come as implementation extensions, allowing historical applications to operate unmodified.

https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/


I don't think there's anything to gain (besides saving 2 filesystem
blocks) by removing egrep and fgrep.

Christoph

Message #11 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiagorr@riseup.net>

To: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, 1019335@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#1019335: Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 17:39:45 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Christoph,

El 07/09/22 a las 16:45, Christoph Berg escribió:
> POSIX has these notes:
> 
> RATIONALE
> 
>     This grep has been enhanced in an upwards-compatible way to provide the exact functionality of the historical egrep and fgrep commands as well. It was the clear intention of the standard developers to consolidate the three greps into a single command.
> 
>     The old egrep and fgrep commands are likely to be supported for many years to come as implementation extensions, allowing historical applications to operate unmodified.
> 
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/
> 
> 
> I don't think there's anything to gain (besides saving 2 filesystem
> blocks) by removing egrep and fgrep.
> 
> Christoph
> 

Thanks for filing this bug report.

For the moment, I am waiting for (a final) upstream input about those
warning, in this bug:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=57604

But giving:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=49996
I doubt they are willing to reconsider deprecating egrep and fgrep.

Cheers,

 -- Santiago

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #16 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>

To: 1019335@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-release <debian-release@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#1019335: Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 21:13:17 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi all,

For transparency I'm letting you know that, with my Release Team manager 
hat on, I have just added a migration block on grep.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 17:39:45 +0200 Santiago Ruano 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rinc=F3n?= <santiagorr@riseup.net> wrote:
> For the moment, I am waiting for (a final) upstream input about those
> warning, in this bug:
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=57604
> 
> But giving:
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=49996
> I doubt they are willing to reconsider deprecating egrep and fgrep.

But we should be considering our own users. I'd appreciate it if either 
Debian continues to ship egrep and fgrep. Or if you don't want to do 
that or if you don't want to decide on your own I'd appreciate it if we 
had a bit of discussion in a broader audience (I suggest 
debian-devel@l.do) to see what we as a project believe is the right 
course of action.

To be clear, I'm not saying we can't have this change at all, but I'm 
saying we can't have this change with at least some agreement that it's 
acceptable by the project. The block is to buy us time to reach that 
agreement.

Paul

[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #21 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiagorr@riseup.net>

To: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>, 1019335@bugs.debian.org, 1019335-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-release <debian-release@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#1019335: Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 17:17:47 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

El 07/09/22 a las 21:13, Paul Gevers escribió:
> Hi all,
> 
> For transparency I'm letting you know that, with my Release Team manager hat
> on, I have just added a migration block on grep.
> 
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 17:39:45 +0200 Santiago Ruano =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rinc=F3n?=
> <santiagorr@riseup.net> wrote:
> > For the moment, I am waiting for (a final) upstream input about those
> > warning, in this bug:
> > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=57604
> > 
> > But giving:
> > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=49996
> > I doubt they are willing to reconsider deprecating egrep and fgrep.
> 
> But we should be considering our own users.

Yes. I just wanted to have more info from upstream. Or avoid uploading
two releases if they decided to revert that change.

> I'd appreciate it if either
> Debian continues to ship egrep and fgrep. Or if you don't want to do that or
> if you don't want to decide on your own I'd appreciate it if we had a bit of
> discussion in a broader audience (I suggest debian-devel@l.do) to see what
> we as a project believe is the right course of action.

I don't think it is needed to discuss at a debian-devel level. I am
reconsidering to revert the related changes. I hope I will be able to
upload tomorrow.

> 
> To be clear, I'm not saying we can't have this change at all, but I'm saying
> we can't have this change with at least some agreement that it's acceptable
> by the project. The block is to buy us time to reach that agreement.
> 

Thanks!

> Paul

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #29 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiagorr@riseup.net>

To: 1019335@bugs.debian.org, 1019335-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-release <debian-release@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#1019335: Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 17:17:10 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Control: tags -1 + pending

Changes are ready. I'll upload on Monday.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #37 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>

To: Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiagorr@riseup.net>

Cc: 1019335@bugs.debian.org, debian-release <debian-release@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#1019335: Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 23:05:50 +0200

Re: Santiago Ruano Rincón
> Changes are ready. I'll upload on Monday.

Thanks!

Christoph

Message #42 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>

To: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiagorr@riseup.net>, 1019335@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#1019335: Reconsider the egrep and fgrep deprecation

Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 13:35:52 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

On 09-09-2022 23:05, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Santiago Ruano Rincón
>> Changes are ready. I'll upload on Monday.
> 
> Thanks!

Indeed. Thanks.

Paul

[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #47 received at 1019335-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 1019335-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#1019335: fixed in grep 3.8-2

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:21:01 +0000

Source: grep
Source-Version: 3.8-2
Done: Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiago@debian.org>

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
grep, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 1019335@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiago@debian.org> (supplier of updated grep package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 11:46:11 +0200
Source: grep
Architecture: source
Version: 3.8-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>
Changed-By: Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiago@debian.org>
Closes: 792385 1019335
Changes:
 grep (3.8-2) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Add 01-disable-egrep-fgrep-warnings.patch (Closes: #1019335)
   * Add 02-man_egrep_fgrep_rgrep.patch
   * Reintroduce and updated 05-grep-wrapper-sh.patch
   * Add test to check availability of egrep and fgrep
   * Add links for egrep.1 and fgrep.1 man pages
   * Add upstream-0001-doc-improve-GREP_COLORS-doc-Bug-57696.patch
     (Closes: #792385)
Checksums-Sha1:
 71f6e7f1b4badde41a385fab4b76eb48995792dd 1608 grep_3.8-2.dsc
 d9a695a11d06b2b0c3f330bfb501d7c79e66069e 19588 grep_3.8-2.debian.tar.xz
 1958f71489bf6438f1e65c6b35d0478e328ccb6b 5892 grep_3.8-2_amd64.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
 05145a63145de98c193e05e5d05ce2cbfaa284318ce201b25fb77234f176d56d 1608 grep_3.8-2.dsc
 f88cd3d9d83f6d6ab20adb9c3867adfc48bdb71ad0dff4e47ec447de8204fbcc 19588 grep_3.8-2.debian.tar.xz
 546e00707920dcdd2e3e80287d806a32eb25e5c44f1fcc8e7a97d330148acda2 5892 grep_3.8-2_amd64.buildinfo
Files:
 abb5455ed4a6f241807118721e4d837e 1608 utils required grep_3.8-2.dsc
 cc3dbb9a2b8a9d73fc635976e94a230b 19588 utils required grep_3.8-2.debian.tar.xz
 bcb258e69ee79a0fa4623d3d43191ffe 5892 utils required grep_3.8-2_amd64.buildinfo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYIAB0WIQRZVjztY8b+Ty43oH1itBCJKh26HQUCYx87cgAKCRBitBCJKh26
HQAuAQDZ4GnTldo/ylnwixugTuH4/ET1QiQ2OZdRcjJ1RRZOZAEArXDinybWYlJS
snuHcT2BR+FWADIv3ERlFEbe6i8/cgA=
=0Ujn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #52 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiago@debian.org>, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>

Cc: 1019335@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#1019335: fixed in grep 3.8-2

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 02:09:24 +0200

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 03:21:01PM +0000, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
>    * Add 01-disable-egrep-fgrep-warnings.patch (Closes: #1019335)
>    * Add 02-man_egrep_fgrep_rgrep.patch
>    * Reintroduce and updated 05-grep-wrapper-sh.patch
>    * Add test to check availability of egrep and fgrep
>    * Add links for egrep.1 and fgrep.1 man pages

A huge thanks to Christoph, Santiago and Paul!

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

Message #57 received at 1019335@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>

To: 1019335@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Shellcheck is a great tool

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 02:50:14 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Looks like WAY more people need to learn the wonderful tool when it comes to 
scripts:

shellcheck (also packaged for Debian)

Maybe make it a release goal for Trixie to make that a requirement?

Run your scripts through shellcheck and you'd have been warned years ago too:
https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC2196
https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC2197

I never ceases to amaze me how ppl rather bicker for days/weeks then fix their 
crap. *sigh*

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.