Afternoon All, For *BSD it would be an additional package that is required (and would need to be tested for during the ConfigureMe step).
Matt On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 16:48 +0100, David Lee wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote: > > > > > Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:15, David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Darwin. it's on our list of 'heartbeat' OSes. Anyone have any > > >>> knowledge > > >>> of current versions and 'bash'? > > >> > > >> bash is the default shell on darwin > > > > > > ack - don't know the version thou. > > > will try to get that information > > > > > > GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (i386-apple-darwin9.0) > > Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > Looks promising. Thanks, Andrew. > > I suppose the real question is a pair: > (a) What is the earliest version of darwin that we need to support? > (b) Does that version of darwin have a reasonable 'bash'? > > > By example, taking the Solaris equivalent (which is what I know a little > about): > > A few years ago that would have been: "(a) Solaris 2.6; (b) no easy bash". > Nowadays: "(a) Solaris 2.8 (probably 2.9). (b) Decent bash since 2.8". > > > > So a migration to assume availability of bash is looking promising. > >
_______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
