Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
Alexander Skwar schrieb: bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? New release, same question: bash-3.1-r2 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
Neil Bothwick schrieb: On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:28:17 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: New release, same question: bash-3.1-r2 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? Tried it this morning, no networking! According to Bugzilla, it needs baselayout-1.12.0_pre13, yet the latest in portage was pre12. I synced again and pre13 was there, now it all seems to work properly. So, don't update Bash unless you are also updating the the correct baselayout. I'm about to update my desktop, so if I'm not around for a while, you'll know why... Well, as before, I'll be a chicken and wait for you to return before I update :) -- Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
I have upgraded it today and haven't any problems (rebooting, syncing, emereging, and so on...). === On Wednesday 04 January 2006 19:28, Alexander Skwar wrote: === Alexander Skwar schrieb: bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? New release, same question: bash-3.1-r2 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:59:26 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: So, don't update Bash unless you are also updating the the correct baselayout. I'm about to update my desktop, so if I'm not around for a while, you'll know why... Well, as before, I'll be a chicken and wait for you to return before I update :) I'm back! :) -- Neil Bothwick One size fits all: Doesn't fit anyone. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
Neil Bothwick schrieb: On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:18:29 +0200, Catalin Trifu wrote: I just had a terrible experience with upgrading to bash-3.1. It breaks the rc-scripts (especially rc-daemon.sh and eth.lo) so you are left without network. emerge --sync again. Bash 3.1 has been package-masked. bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:34 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident. -- Neil Bothwick Puns are bad, but poetry is verse... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
Neil Bothwick schrieb: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:34 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident. Ah, great to hear - I was too much of a chicken to try it myself :) Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:26:52 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident. Ah, great to hear - I was too much of a chicken to try it myself :) I have buildpkg in FEATURES, so even if an upgrade prevents booting, I only have to boot from a live CD and untar the previous version. -- Neil Bothwick An example of hard water is ice. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident. I just did a emerge sync and then emerge world. Bash v3.1 was emerged a reboot later and my scripts were broken. Bleh! Back to Bash v3.0 -- Ryan Viljoen Bsc(Eng) (Electrical) When you say I wrote a program that crashed Windows, people just stare at you blankly and say Hey, I got those with the system, for free. - Linus Torvalds, 1995 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there some feature that I have to have? On Thursday 22 December 2005 16:18, a tiny voice compelled Ryan Viljoen to write: bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade to bash v3.1? It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident. I just did a emerge sync and then emerge world. Bash v3.1 was emerged a reboot later and my scripts were broken. Bleh! Back to Bash v3.0 -- Ryan Viljoen Bsc(Eng) (Electrical) When you say I wrote a program that crashed Windows, people just stare at you blankly and say Hey, I got those with the system, for free. - Linus Torvalds, 1995 -- Regards, Ernie 100% Microsoft and Intel free 16:31:14 up 2 days, 5:36, 4 users, load average: 0.16, 0.60, 0.47 Linux 2.6.14-gentoo-r42.6.14-r-4_new i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
On 12/22/05, Ernie Schroder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there some feature that I have to have? It wasnt on purpose I assure you, I only notice after the emerge world was complete. -- Ryan Viljoen Bsc(Eng) (Electrical) When you say I wrote a program that crashed Windows, people just stare at you blankly and say Hey, I got those with the system, for free. - Linus Torvalds, 1995 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
Ernie Schroder schrieb: Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there some feature that I have to have? The point is, that it is in the unstable Gentoo tree. And people that have ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 in make.conf will install this. Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:32:43 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote: Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there some feature that I have to have? No, but I run pure ~arch systems. When I updated world on my iBook, a bash update was included, so I let it run. I then rebooted and none of my init scripts showed errors. It appears that others weren't so lucky and that version is now hard-masked. -- Neil Bothwick Phasers don't kill people...Unless you set them too high. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
I understand that anyone with ~x86 in make.conf would get an upgrade like that. I used to run one box bleeding edge but had a portage/perl issue about a year and a half ago that took a couple days to fix. That cured my need for the latest and greatest of everything. Now, I run a few ~x86 apps but I don't really know enough to go all the way. On Thursday 22 December 2005 17:58, a tiny voice compelled Neil Bothwick to write: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:32:43 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote: Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there some feature that I have to have? No, but I run pure ~arch systems. When I updated world on my iBook, a bash update was included, so I let it run. I then rebooted and none of my init scripts showed errors. It appears that others weren't so lucky and that version is now hard-masked. -- Regards, Ernie 100% Microsoft and Intel free 23:37:28 up 2 days, 12:42, 4 users, load average: 0.05, 0.09, 0.19 Linux 2.6.14-gentoo-r42.6.14-r-4_new i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
Hi,
I just had a terrible experience with upgrading to bash-3.1. It breaks
the rc-scripts (especially rc-daemon.sh and eth.lo) so you are left
without network.
/lib/rcscripts/sh/rc-daemon.sh: line 328: syntax error near unexpected
token `('
/lib/rcscripts/sh/rc-daemon.sh: line 328: ` local -a RC_DAEMONS=()
RC_PIDFILES=()'
/etc/init.d/net.lo: line 286: syntax error near unexpected token `('
/etc/init.d/net.lo: line 286: ` local -a provide=() provide_list=()
after=() dead=() sorted=() sortedp=()'
I guess the new bash does not accept the declaration of arrays like this
anymore.
Catalin
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BASH 3.1 - DON't UPGRADE
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:18:29 +0200, Catalin Trifu wrote: I just had a terrible experience with upgrading to bash-3.1. It breaks the rc-scripts (especially rc-daemon.sh and eth.lo) so you are left without network. emerge --sync again. Bash 3.1 has been package-masked. -- Neil Bothwick He who asks a question is a fool for a minute, He who doesn't ask is a fool for a lifetime. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
