Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:55:02 -0500
> Chet Ramey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> I don't get this; I must be missing something. If I do, in
>>> bash-3.1:
>> I get identical results with fully-patched versions of bash-3.1 and
>> bash-3.2:
>
> $ /data/g2/tmp/portage/app-shells/bash-3.2_p9-r2/image/bin/bash -version
> GNU bash, version 3.2.9(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
> Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> $ /data/g2/tmp/portage/app-shells/bash-3.2_p9-r2/image/bin/bash ~/x17
> yes 1
> yes 2
> yes 3
> yes 4
>
> That's with bash-3.2 built with only the 001 through 009 patches
> applied (we have a few other local patches for various reasons, but I've
> built without them to be sure they're not affecting this). What's the
> (7) in the release number - does that refer to difference I might be
> missing?
Strange. It succeeds on Mac OS X, Solaris, FreeBSD, and BSD/OS. Linux
fails (Red Hat, FWIW).
I'll have to look into it further.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
Live Strong. No day but today.
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
_______________________________________________
Bug-bash mailing list
Bug-bash@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash
