Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:17:57PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Michael wrote: Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? I see we still are on patch level 028. The Bash patches did not apply cleanly. I've submitted a patch to update to 37. It's attached to the PR ports/170283: I'll take a look. Thanks! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On 8/3/2012 12:52 PM, David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:17:57PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Michael wrote: Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? I see we still are on patch level 028. The Bash patches did not apply cleanly. Works here. # portsnap extract shells/bash /usr/ports/shells/bash-completion/ /usr/ports/shells/bash-static/ /usr/ports/shells/bash/ /usr/ports/shells/bashc/ # cd /usr/ports/shells/bash # fetch -o patch 'http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170283getpatch=1' # patch -p0 patch Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -- |diff -ur ../bash.orig/Makefile ./Makefile |--- ../bash.orig/Makefile 2012-05-07 10:12:41.0 -0500 |+++ ./Makefile 2012-07-30 15:14:26.0 -0500 -- Patching file ./Makefile using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 7. Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -- |diff -ur ../bash.orig/distinfo ./distinfo |--- ../bash.orig/distinfo 2012-05-07 10:12:41.0 -0500 |+++ ./distinfo 2012-07-30 14:40:11.0 -0500 -- Patching file ./distinfo using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 56. Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -- |diff -ur ../bash.orig/files/xpatch-colonbreakswords ./files/xpatch-colonbreakswords |--- ../bash.orig/files/xpatch-colonbreakswords 2012-01-12 16:32:28.0 -0600 |+++ ./files/xpatch-colonbreakswords2012-07-30 15:08:22.0 -0500 -- Patching file ./files/xpatch-colonbreakswords using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 1. Hunk #2 succeeded at 12. Hunk #3 succeeded at 20. Hunk #4 succeeded at 40. Hunk #5 succeeded at 103. Hunk #6 succeeded at 113. done I've submitted a patch to update to 37. It's attached to the PR ports/170283: I'll take a look. Thanks! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 8/3/2012 12:52 PM, David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:17:57PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Michael wrote: Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? I see we still are on patch level 028. The Bash patches did not apply cleanly. Works here. Simply bumping PATCHLEVEL did not lead to a buildable port. As you know xpatch-colonbreakswords did not apply cleanly. I had not committed an update as I was researching what I thought the best fix was. -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:19:45 -0400 Jason Hellenthal articulated: Kevin sorry for posting this from your message it had to go somewhere since there was no such great message to reply to. not intended directly toward anyone in general. This thread has turned to nothing but obnoxious dribble of what used to be a simple problem to solve. All of the bash-* patches that were inquired about are important to the user interface and some of them are directly related to most everyone. Sorry, according to Doug, if it doesn't pertain to him then it is a useless patch and not worthy of inclusion into the present Bash port. ESPECIALLY $HOME/ expansiion if I might need to state one. But let me state one thing here Ports is a framework containing lots of development. And justly it should not be judged that a port should not be upgraded because it might introduce new bugs to a stable community. Well said -- paying attention Doug. Any patch can potentially introduce new or expose old problems with software. Refusing to try them is as ridiculous as a child refusing to eat peas because he/she thinks they aren't going to like them sans any actual, verifiable proof. Just because a port is being updated does not neccesarily mean that end-user needs to update their local install. It does mean that if its there it will get more exposure to further fixes... There are several ports which go head - head with the most current release that could stand to not be updated quite so often. Again, well stated. So for what its worth Stop pu??y wiping ports! especially when it does not break the ports system itself. All this written from mutt(1) ontop of bash(1) 4.2.37(0)-release since Jul 17! Basically, that is exactly what I have been saying. The end user should be the one making the final decision, not some megalomaniac like Doug who feels his opinions are the only ones that count. By the way, I just noticed that openssl-1.0.1_3 has been updated to openssl-1.0.3_4. I wonder if the maintainer asked Doug's permission first. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Michael wrote: Hello obrien, Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? I see we still are on patch level 028. Regards, Michael Zoon I've submitted a patch to update to 37. It's attached to the PR ports/170283: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170283 You can apply with: cd /usr/ports/shells/bash fetch -o patch-37 'http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170283getpatch=1' patch -p0 patch-37 -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Doug Barton articulated: On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Jerry wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:14:25 -0700 Doug Barton articulated: On 07/25/2012 08:03, Michael wrote: Hello obrien, Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? Is there a specific bug fixed that you're interested in? The short answer would be what the hell difference does that make? We don't use that kind of language on the FreeBSD lists. The OP just wanted to know if the port was going to be updated to include the newly released patches. The long answer is that he is interested in getting the official patches to correct known problems with Bash. Who's business is it what problem, real or potential that the OP is looking to correct or prevent? Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash patches are not always strictly bug fixes. First of all, I see you CC'd me AGAIN. Obviously your comprehension skills are rather lax since I have a clearly noted request NOT to be CC'd and have in the past specifically asked you not to do so. I took the time to relay your CC'd message to SpamCop. I know it won't do any good, but it is a feel good thing. Strictly speaking, it is none of your business if bug fixes can bring in or expose new or undiscovered problems. It has been shown throughout history that any advancement can bring with it, its own new set of problems. Should we all abandon the use of electricity because there is a real possibility that someone man get electrified. Kainolophobia can be treated. By the way, do you use bash? if not then what is your problem? If you do, have you read what the patches actually entail? I have. There is also the issue that in FreeBSD we are generally more conservative about upgrading something from a known-stable version. That is a lot about nothing. Postfix is updated in virtual real time. For every port that you can list that is left effectively abandoned for extended periods of time, I can produce one that is updated in a timely fashion. I know, now you want a definition of timely. In my opinion, I believe 30 days is sufficient. That is only a general rule. Obviously, some large and complex ports like KDE or the latest version of Apache would not easily fit into that time constraint. However, the maintainers of those ports, just to name a few, have publically posted regarding their work on the port and what has to be done to make it ready for the ports system. If the Bash maintainer⁽¹⁾ feels that there is a problem with updating Bash at this time, then he needs only to post it. As for my motivations for asking the question, there are at least 2. First, I don't see anything in the latest set of patches that I find particularly exciting, but I'm interested in the OP's perspective. Second, if the OP is actually being affected by one of the things that is patched, I know the maintainer would be interested in that. I am really impressed with the fact that you have not noted anything in the patches that turns you on. I failed to notice any mention in the FreeBSD handbook, or other literature for that matter that stated that patches, etcetera are only deemed worthy if Doug approves of them. Would you please be so kind as to point out to me where that is so noted. The OP specifically inquired about the updating of Bash which is seriously behind in its FreeBSD patch set. He did not ask for your permission. If you have a fear of updating software (I wonder if there is a phobia for that) then don't update yours. I know that in Portmanager and Portupgrade I can specifically exclude ports I do not want to touch. What is so hard to comprehend abut that? The solution is so simple that I fail to grasp why it is beyond your comprehension. The port is simply updated in the port's tree. Then an end user has the option of updating on their machine or not. The KISS principal at its finest. CHOICE, isn't that what open-source software is all about, or is it only applicable when Doug approves of it? Seriously, I really want to know. It readily appears that you are attempting to use Parkinson's Law of Triviality, also known as bikeshedding to legitimize the delay of updating a port sans any concrete proof? Why? What are you so terrified of? If you don't use the port, then it is of no significance to you. If you do and choose not to update it, then that is your business. Again, such a simple decision. Doug, I still use version 1.x of Dovecot. Why you ask -- because I want to. Why didn't I update you inquire -- because I did not want to. However, I am very glad that there is a much improved version 2.x of Dovecot and plan to take it out for a test drive when I have to install a new mail-server, perhaps later this
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
Umm ... wow. I'll try to respond substantively below. On 07/29/2012 04:46, Jerry wrote: On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Doug Barton articulated: Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash patches are not always strictly bug fixes. First of all, I see you CC'd me AGAIN. Obviously your comprehension skills are rather lax since I have a clearly noted request NOT to be CC'd and have in the past specifically asked you not to do so. I made a point of cc'ing you on my last message because I wanted to make sure you saw the bit about not using foul language. I appreciate you respecting that. Meanwhile, yes, you've expressed a preference not to be cc'ed on list mail previously. Rather than trying to rehash the whole discussion, I'll simply repeat the main 2 points: 1. Asking the entire Internet to conform to your whim is not a rational strategy. 2. The FreeBSD mailman implementation allows you to specify only receiving 1 copy of a message that you are cc'ed on. I took the time to relay your CC'd message to SpamCop. I know it won't do any good, but it is a feel good thing. Knock yourself out. :) Strictly speaking, it is none of your business if bug fixes can bring in or expose new or undiscovered problems. You keep repeating this none of your business line as if for some reason I don't have the right to ask the question. This is an open project, we can all ask questions. It has been shown throughout history that any advancement can bring with it, its own new set of problems. Should we all abandon the use of electricity because there is a real possibility that someone man get electrified. Yeah, that's just silly. Before we upgrade something it's useful to ask the question of whether or not the upgrade is qualitatively better or not. Just because something comes down from upstream doesn't mean it's an improvement from our users' perspective. By the way, do you use bash? if not then what is your problem? If you do, have you read what the patches actually entail? I have. I already mentioned that I did review the patches. There is also the issue that in FreeBSD we are generally more conservative about upgrading something from a known-stable version. That is a lot about nothing. Postfix is updated in virtual real time. For every port that you can list that is left effectively abandoned for extended periods of time, I can produce one that is updated in a timely fashion. ... all of which would be totally irrelevant. Maintainers are responsible for deciding whether to update, and is so, when. They are also responsible for making sure that the new version is actually an improvement. For some ports/maintainers these are easy decisions. For others they may take time, and/or the maintainer themselves may have to prioritize the update amongst many other projects. Getting information from the users as to why a particular update may have a higher priority than is obvious at first glance is very valuable to the maintainer. OTOH it does occasionally happen that maintainers don't have time to handle the port in a timely manner, and need to be replaced. In that case, the information about maintainers ignoring important updates is also useful to the community. I'm deleting your whole ad hominem attack because there wasn't anything substantive in there to respond to. Good luck, Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:42:38 -0700 Doug Barton articulated: Umm ... wow. I'll try to respond substantively below. On 07/29/2012 04:46, Jerry wrote: On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Doug Barton articulated: Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash patches are not always strictly bug fixes. First of all, I see you CC'd me AGAIN. Obviously your comprehension skills are rather lax since I have a clearly noted request NOT to be CC'd and have in the past specifically asked you not to do so. I made a point of cc'ing you on my last message because I wanted to make sure you saw the bit about not using foul language. I appreciate you respecting that. First of all, lets make something clear, I have no respect for you. You are like a frigging kid. The only permanent solution is to smash your frigging head in with a bat. Oops, I hope I didn't offend you. Maybe you should CC your mother so she can protect you, you asshole. Meanwhile, yes, you've expressed a preference not to be cc'ed on list mail previously. Rather than trying to rehash the whole discussion, I'll simply repeat the main 2 points: 1. Asking the entire Internet to conform to your whim is not a rational strategy. 2. The FreeBSD mailman implementation allows you to specify only receiving 1 copy of a message that you are cc'ed on. Allow me to respond to that, BULLSHIT. Oh, did I offend you? I never asked the frigging entire Internet to bow down to my will; I simple asked not to be CC'd. Since you, most likely due to your NPD affiliation are unable to honor my simple request, why the frigging hell should I afford yours any traction? You do realize that you do not have to include my name in the CC line don't you? I took the time to relay your CC'd message to SpamCop. I know it won't do any good, but it is a feel good thing. Knock yourself out. :) Strictly speaking, it is none of your business if bug fixes can bring in or expose new or undiscovered problems. You keep repeating this none of your business line as if for some reason I don't have the right to ask the question. This is an open project, we can all ask questions. Ask question yes; stating that any patch or whatever not be instituted because it doesn't meet your standards is repulsive. (NPD strikes again) It has been shown throughout history that any advancement can bring with it, its own new set of problems. Should we all abandon the use of electricity because there is a real possibility that someone man get electrified. Yeah, that's just silly. Before we upgrade something it's useful to ask the question of whether or not the upgrade is qualitatively better or not. Just because something comes down from upstream doesn't mean it's an improvement from our users' perspective. Based upon who's opinion, yours? There is that NPD kicking in again. Lets all bow down to Dough the magnificent. Only he is worthy to judge whether a port is deemed worthy of being updated. I am going to file a PR against this for insertion into the handbook. I know it will never get published, but it just another feel good thing. By the way, do you use bash? if not then what is your problem? If you do, have you read what the patches actually entail? I have. I already mentioned that I did review the patches. There is also the issue that in FreeBSD we are generally more conservative about upgrading something from a known-stable version. That is a lot about nothing. Postfix is updated in virtual real time. For every port that you can list that is left effectively abandoned for extended periods of time, I can produce one that is updated in a timely fashion. ... all of which would be totally irrelevant. Maintainers are responsible for deciding whether to update, and is so, when. They are also responsible for making sure that the new version is actually an improvement. For some ports/maintainers these are easy decisions. For others they may take time, and/or the maintainer themselves may have to prioritize the update amongst many other projects. So why not let the port maintainer express his feeling on this matter? Do you feel he is not capable, or should I say as capable as you of expressing his feelings? Getting information from the users as to why a particular update may have a higher priority than is obvious at first glance is very valuable to the maintainer. So you are proposing that ports only be updated when specifically requested by users? Again, the last Bash update took nearly a year. This one is several months old all ready. If the port is only going to be updated semi-annually, or annually, then it would behoove the maintainer to publicly state so. What is so frigging hard
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jerry je...@seibercom.net wrote: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:42:38 -0700 Doug Barton articulated: Umm ... wow. I'll try to respond substantively below. On 07/29/2012 04:46, Jerry wrote: On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Doug Barton articulated: Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash patches are not always strictly bug fixes. First of all, I see you CC'd me AGAIN. Obviously your comprehension skills are rather lax since I have a clearly noted request NOT to be CC'd and have in the past specifically asked you not to do so. I made a point of cc'ing you on my last message because I wanted to make sure you saw the bit about not using foul language. I appreciate you respecting that. First of all, lets make something clear, I have no respect for you. You are like a frigging kid. The only permanent solution is to smash your frigging head in with a bat. Oops, I hope I didn't offend you. Maybe you should CC your mother so she can protect you, you asshole. Meanwhile, yes, you've expressed a preference not to be cc'ed on list mail previously. Rather than trying to rehash the whole discussion, I'll simply repeat the main 2 points: 1. Asking the entire Internet to conform to your whim is not a rational strategy. 2. The FreeBSD mailman implementation allows you to specify only receiving 1 copy of a message that you are cc'ed on. Allow me to respond to that, BULLSHIT. Oh, did I offend you? I never asked the frigging entire Internet to bow down to my will; I simple asked not to be CC'd. Since you, most likely due to your NPD affiliation are unable to honor my simple request, why the frigging hell should I afford yours any traction? You do realize that you do not have to include my name in the CC line don't you? I took the time to relay your CC'd message to SpamCop. I know it won't do any good, but it is a feel good thing. Knock yourself out. :) Strictly speaking, it is none of your business if bug fixes can bring in or expose new or undiscovered problems. You keep repeating this none of your business line as if for some reason I don't have the right to ask the question. This is an open project, we can all ask questions. Ask question yes; stating that any patch or whatever not be instituted because it doesn't meet your standards is repulsive. (NPD strikes again) It has been shown throughout history that any advancement can bring with it, its own new set of problems. Should we all abandon the use of electricity because there is a real possibility that someone man get electrified. Yeah, that's just silly. Before we upgrade something it's useful to ask the question of whether or not the upgrade is qualitatively better or not. Just because something comes down from upstream doesn't mean it's an improvement from our users' perspective. Based upon who's opinion, yours? There is that NPD kicking in again. Lets all bow down to Dough the magnificent. Only he is worthy to judge whether a port is deemed worthy of being updated. I am going to file a PR against this for insertion into the handbook. I know it will never get published, but it just another feel good thing. By the way, do you use bash? if not then what is your problem? If you do, have you read what the patches actually entail? I have. I already mentioned that I did review the patches. There is also the issue that in FreeBSD we are generally more conservative about upgrading something from a known-stable version. That is a lot about nothing. Postfix is updated in virtual real time. For every port that you can list that is left effectively abandoned for extended periods of time, I can produce one that is updated in a timely fashion. ... all of which would be totally irrelevant. Maintainers are responsible for deciding whether to update, and is so, when. They are also responsible for making sure that the new version is actually an improvement. For some ports/maintainers these are easy decisions. For others they may take time, and/or the maintainer themselves may have to prioritize the update amongst many other projects. So why not let the port maintainer express his feeling on this matter? Do you feel he is not capable, or should I say as capable as you of expressing his feelings? Getting information from the users as to why a particular update may have a higher priority than is obvious at first glance is very valuable to the maintainer. So you are proposing that ports only be updated when specifically requested by users? Again, the last Bash update took nearly a year. This one is several months old all ready. If the port is only going to be updated semi-annually, or annually, then it
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
Kevin sorry for posting this from your message it had to go somewhere since there was no such great message to reply to. not intended directly toward anyone in general. This thread has turned to nothing but obnoxious dribble of what used to be a simple problem to solve. All of the bash-* patches that were inquired about are important to the user interface and some of them are directly related to most everyone. ESPECIALLY $HOME/ expansiion if I might need to state one. But let me state one thing here Ports is a framework containing lots of development. And justly it should not be judged that a port should not be upgraded because it might introduce new bugs to a stable community. Just because a port is being updated does not neccesarily mean that end-user needs to update their local install. It does mean that if its there it will get more exposure to further fixes... There are several ports which go head - head with the most current release that could stand to not be updated quite so often. So for what its worth Stop pu??y wiping ports! especially when it does not break the ports system itself. All this written from mutt(1) ontop of bash(1) 4.2.37(0)-release since Jul 17! On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 06:29:37PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jerry je...@seibercom.net wrote: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:42:38 -0700 Doug Barton articulated: Umm ... wow. I'll try to respond substantively below. On 07/29/2012 04:46, Jerry wrote: On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Doug Barton articulated: Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash patches are not always strictly bug fixes. First of all, I see you CC'd me AGAIN. Obviously your comprehension skills are rather lax since I have a clearly noted request NOT to be CC'd and have in the past specifically asked you not to do so. I made a point of cc'ing you on my last message because I wanted to make sure you saw the bit about not using foul language. I appreciate you respecting that. First of all, lets make something clear, I have no respect for you. You are like a frigging kid. The only permanent solution is to smash your frigging head in with a bat. Oops, I hope I didn't offend you. Maybe you should CC your mother so she can protect you, you asshole. Meanwhile, yes, you've expressed a preference not to be cc'ed on list mail previously. Rather than trying to rehash the whole discussion, I'll simply repeat the main 2 points: 1. Asking the entire Internet to conform to your whim is not a rational strategy. 2. The FreeBSD mailman implementation allows you to specify only receiving 1 copy of a message that you are cc'ed on. Allow me to respond to that, BULLSHIT. Oh, did I offend you? I never asked the frigging entire Internet to bow down to my will; I simple asked not to be CC'd. Since you, most likely due to your NPD affiliation are unable to honor my simple request, why the frigging hell should I afford yours any traction? You do realize that you do not have to include my name in the CC line don't you? I took the time to relay your CC'd message to SpamCop. I know it won't do any good, but it is a feel good thing. Knock yourself out. :) Strictly speaking, it is none of your business if bug fixes can bring in or expose new or undiscovered problems. You keep repeating this none of your business line as if for some reason I don't have the right to ask the question. This is an open project, we can all ask questions. Ask question yes; stating that any patch or whatever not be instituted because it doesn't meet your standards is repulsive. (NPD strikes again) It has been shown throughout history that any advancement can bring with it, its own new set of problems. Should we all abandon the use of electricity because there is a real possibility that someone man get electrified. Yeah, that's just silly. Before we upgrade something it's useful to ask the question of whether or not the upgrade is qualitatively better or not. Just because something comes down from upstream doesn't mean it's an improvement from our users' perspective. Based upon who's opinion, yours? There is that NPD kicking in again. Lets all bow down to Dough the magnificent. Only he is worthy to judge whether a port is deemed worthy of being updated. I am going to file a PR against this for insertion into the handbook. I know it will never get published, but it just another feel good thing. By the way, do you use bash? if not then what is your problem? If you do, have you read what the patches actually entail? I have. I already mentioned that I did review the patches.
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Jerry wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:14:25 -0700 Doug Barton articulated: On 07/25/2012 08:03, Michael wrote: Hello obrien, Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? Is there a specific bug fixed that you're interested in? The short answer would be what the hell difference does that make? We don't use that kind of language on the FreeBSD lists. The OP just wanted to know if the port was going to be updated to include the newly released patches. The long answer is that he is interested in getting the official patches to correct known problems with Bash. Who's business is it what problem, real or potential that the OP is looking to correct or prevent? Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash patches are not always strictly bug fixes. There is also the issue that in FreeBSD we are generally more conservative about upgrading something from a known-stable version. As for my motivations for asking the question, there are at least 2. First, I don't see anything in the latest set of patches that I find particularly exciting, but I'm interested in the OP's perspective. Second, if the OP is actually being affected by one of the things that is patched, I know the maintainer would be interested in that. Actually, the OP would be better served contacting the port maintainer obr...@freebsd.org. Unlike Postfix that sa...@freebsd.org updates in virtually real time, there is usually quite a lag between the time Bash issues a patch and the time it makes it into the ports system. See above. hth, Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
Hello obrien, Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? I see we still are on patch level 028. Regards, Michael Zoon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On 07/25/2012 08:03, Michael wrote: Hello obrien, Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? Is there a specific bug fixed that you're interested in? -- Change is hard. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:14:25 -0700 Doug Barton articulated: On 07/25/2012 08:03, Michael wrote: Hello obrien, Any plans to update bash-4.2.28 up to patch level 037? Is there a specific bug fixed that you're interested in? The short answer would be what the hell difference does that make? The OP just wanted to know if the port was going to be updated to include the newly released patches. The long answer is that he is interested in getting the official patches to correct known problems with Bash. Who's business is it what problem, real or potential that the OP is looking to correct or prevent? Actually, the OP would be better served contacting the port maintainer obr...@freebsd.org. Unlike Postfix that sa...@freebsd.org updates in virtually real time, there is usually quite a lag between the time Bash issues a patch and the time it makes it into the ports system. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
