Description of Problem: If you give dos2unix a mac file (one where lines are separate by \r alone) and accidentally ask it to convert in DOS mode, you get a file with no newlines. To me this seems like confusing behavior. I'd prefer it if DOS conversion mode changed `\r\n' to `\n' -- and left lone `\r's unmodified. That would reduce the potential for error. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): dos2unix 3.1 (Thu Nov 19 1998) How Reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual Results: Expected Results: Additional Information:
Created attachment 104332 [details] a patch
Created attachment 104333 [details] patch (with uneeded lines dropped) My post to fedora-patch-list bounced, and when I looked at the message, I've noticed lines in the patch which I should have deleted earlier.
The patch makes sense. I haven't been able to test it because I have no mac files here, but the code looks sane. Mike, want to rebuild the package or should I rebuild it ?
cat unixfile | tr \\n \\r > macfile
Created attachment 104335 [details] final patch While the unneeded lines in the first patch did no harm (a cut'n'rename mistake), the second patch lost the line delimiter of the last line when running mac2unix on a Mac file. A minor detail, easily overlooked when running tests. $ cd /tmp $ cat /etc/services | tr \\n \\r > macfile $ ls -la macfile -rw------- 1 misc2 misc2 19936 Sep 26 21:05 macfile $ dos2unix -c Mac macfile dos2unix: converting file macfile to UNIX format ... $ ls -la macfile -rw------- 1 misc2 misc2 19936 Sep 26 21:06 macfile $ cat macfile | tr \\r \\n > unixfile $ md5sum unixfile /etc/services 485eacadb2a1d18fcf66483f81829f02 unixfile 485eacadb2a1d18fcf66483f81829f02 /etc/services [size and checksum stay the same]
Patch applied in dos2unix-3.1-19
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-195.html