I hereby withdraw my voluntary offer as bash maintainer!
H.
David Dindorp wrote:
Jokes aside, I can't respond to the fact that you don't believe
a word I say with anything else than you obviously don't have
a clue.
Chris wasn't saying he didn't believe anything you say. Chris has
infinitely more credibility when it comes to judgements of Cygwin
On Apr 10 12:17, Hans W. Horn wrote:
Corinna Igor,
Urgh! Bold hint: ./configure --prefix=/usr
I just (con-)figured that out myself. Thx anyways!
Just as a side note, http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents
mentions all usual configure options for a Cygwin installation.
Corinna
--
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
Folks,
If you are still willing then you've got the job.
Alright, I'm on - despite a rough start!
Hans, if you plan to maintain a package, you really ought to subscribe to
the cygwin-apps list. Packaging discussions should take place there.
I'm sending
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 10 13:28, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
Looks like bash2.x install in /usr/bin while bash3.x installs in
/usr/local/bin. Is that ok?
No, it isn't. Cygwin programs get installed in /usr/bin. If the
On Apr 10 13:28, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
Looks like bash2.x install in /usr/bin while bash3.x installs in
/usr/local/bin. Is that ok?
No, it isn't. Cygwin programs get installed in /usr/bin. If the upstream
package doesn't go there by default,
Corinna Igor,
Urgh! Bold hint: ./configure --prefix=/usr
I just (con-)figured that out myself. Thx anyways!
How do I go about Pierre's pid patch?
You'll need to see exactly what it changes in the 2.05 sources, find
and modify the corresponding places in the 3.0 sources, and then (the
hardest
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:46:32PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 10 13:28, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
Looks like bash2.x install in /usr/bin while bash3.x installs in
/usr/local/bin. Is that ok?
No, it isn't. Cygwin programs get installed in /usr/bin.
Thanks Brian,
Brian Dessent wrote:
Hans W. Horn wrote:
This mysterious patch of Pierre: is it in that half-a-ton patch file
that comes with the bash-2.05b-17 sources?
If yes, hasn't anybody tried to get this patch back into bash
mainstream?
No, this is Pierre's patch:
Hans W. Horn wrote:
This helps a lot! By working my way thru 3way-comparison of 2.05unpatched vs
2.05patched vs 3.0patched, I saw that many (but not all) of Pierre's patches
must have made it back into bash mainstream.
For some sources, however (in particular in jobs.c and subst.c) the
Folks,
If you are still willing then you've got the job.
Alright, I'm on - despite a rough start!
There is one potential problem in that we may need to adapt Pierre's
patch to prevent problems with pid reuse to 3.0 if it is released.
How do I go about Pierre's pid patch?
The next step is
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
Folks,
If you are still willing then you've got the job.
Alright, I'm on - despite a rough start!
Hans, if you plan to maintain a package, you really ought to subscribe to
the cygwin-apps list. Packaging discussions should take place there.
I'm sending
On Apr 10 13:28, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
Looks like bash2.x install in /usr/bin while bash3.x installs in
/usr/local/bin. Is that ok?
No, it isn't. Cygwin programs get installed in /usr/bin. If the upstream
package doesn't go there by default,
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:46:32PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 10 13:28, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
Looks like bash2.x install in /usr/bin while bash3.x installs in
/usr/local/bin. Is that ok?
No, it isn't. Cygwin programs get installed in /usr/bin.
Dave Korn wrote:
If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw
in a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PPAST
Obviously, if I were able to produce a simple testcase, I would have.
Duh ;-).
There's nothing _obvious_ about
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 03:40:12AM +0200, David Dindorp wrote:
Cygwin is as complex as a Linux kernel.
*snort* Your lack of credibility is showing.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:
I wrote:
Cygwin is as complex as a Linux kernel.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
*snort* Your lack of credibility is showing.
Your lifelong devotion to being hateful
instead of constructive is showing?
Jokes aside, I can't respond to the fact that you don't believe
a word I say with anything else
On Apr 7 22:20, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:10:14PM -0700, Hans Horn wrote:
Nevermind! Sorry, folks - I really didn't mean to upset anybody! Bye then!
No, no. Please. We are looking for a new bash maintainer. We haven't
heard from the maintainer in a while and
Brian Dessent wrote:
Furthermore, threads in the past have
expressed the fact that 2.05b has been very stable and both Ronald and
others have agreed that any major changes in bash would have to be
done very carefully so as not to cause instability.
Uhm. No it's not..
Bash 2.05b is so
On Apr 8 12:19, David Dindorp wrote:
To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash
problem, or perhaps a bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin
because the maintainer haven't had the time problem. It's running
quite stable under 1.5.10, it sucks with 1.5.12 and
David Dindorp wrote:
Uhm. No it's not..
Bash 2.05b is so unstable under Cygwin that it classifies as a
volatile chemical. At least if you put it under a lot of pressure -
a normal users everyday use it may cope fine with, which is probably
how it's used by most people in here anyway.
To
Brian Dessent wrote:
David Dindorp wrote:
Uhm. No it's not..
Bash 2.05b is so unstable under Cygwin that it classifies as a
volatile chemical. At least if you put it under a lot of pressure -
a normal users everyday use it may cope fine with, which is probably
how it's used by most people
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 8 12:19, David Dindorp wrote:
To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash
problem, or perhaps a bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin
because the maintainer haven't had the time problem. It's running
quite stable under 1.5.10, it
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:06:02PM +0200, David Dindorp wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 8 12:19, David Dindorp wrote:
To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash
problem, or perhaps a bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin
because the maintainer haven't had
Original Message
From: David Dindorp
Sent: 08 April 2005 14:06
If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw in
a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PPAST
I'm surprised, myself, I find bash very reliable.
If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw in
a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
If you are happy to throw a bunch of manhours to try and find out
what's
wrong, then the solution is obvious -- learn cygwin that well.
Manhours. Not entire
If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw in
a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PPAST
Obviously, if I were able to produce a simple testcase, I would have.
Duh ;-).
--
Unsubscribe info:
Original Message
From: David Dindorp
Sent: 08 April 2005 16:14
If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw in
a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PPAST
Obviously, if I were able to produce a simple testcase, I
There is one potential problem in that we may need to adapt Pierre's
patch to prevent problems with pid reuse to 3.0 if it is released.
Besides that, looking at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-3.0-
patches/, I see 16 patches. I hope all of those will be applied to a
Cygwin bash 3.0
repeatedly that he has been busy and without access to a windows
machine, which is probably why there have been few bash updates. On the
other hand, he has also said nothing to indicate that he does not wish
to continue maintaining bash. Furthermore, threads in the past have
expressed the fact
Oops - didn't see this one! Just posted offer as bash voluteer myself!
Was looking for bash 3.0 in the archives.
If Jonathan still wants to maintain bash 3.0, of course, I will withdraw my
offer.
H.
Tim Prince wrote:
At 06:35 AM 3/18/2005, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
I don't know what to do
Hans Horn wrote:
Oops - didn't see this one! Just posted offer as bash voluteer myself!
Was looking for bash 3.0 in the archives.
If Jonathan still wants to maintain bash 3.0, of course, I will withdraw my
offer.
Yeah, sorry, I just haven't been able to get to it - crunch time here at
work. If
Jonathan Arnold wrote:
Hans Horn wrote:
Oops - didn't see this one! Just posted offer as bash voluteer myself!
Was looking for bash 3.0 in the archives.
If Jonathan still wants to maintain bash 3.0, of course, I will
withdraw my offer.
Yeah, sorry, I just haven't been able to get to it - crunch
repeatedly that he has been busy and without access to a windows
machine, which is probably why there have been few bash updates. On the
other hand, he has also said nothing to indicate that he does not wish
to continue maintaining bash. Furthermore, threads in the past have
expressed the fact
does not
wish to continue maintaining bash. Furthermore, threads in the past
have expressed the fact that 2.05b has been very stable and both
Ronald and others have agreed that any major changes in bash would
have to be done very carefully so as not to cause instability.
I have CC:d
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:10:14PM -0700, Hans Horn wrote:
Nevermind! Sorry, folks - I really didn't mean to upset anybody! Bye then!
No, no. Please. We are looking for a new bash maintainer. We haven't
heard from the maintainer in a while and private email to him bounces.
That is what
If no one has stepped forward, I'd be willing to try and maintain the
bash package. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the whole process, and
the Packages page confuses me, so you'll have to guide me along gently.
Here's what I've done so far:
* Download the bash-3.0 source
* Built it
At 06:35 AM 3/18/2005, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
I don't know what to do with the patches that I find in the
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-3.0-patches/
folder. How do you apply patches for GNU source?
info patch
typically,
patch -p1 file.c patchfile
Tim Prince
--
Unsubscribe info:
38 matches
Mail list logo
