Hello,
I need to install Bash 2.01 on a Debian 1.3.1 bo-based system.
How safe is it to use bash-2.01 from bo-unstable? Does anyone have had
problems with that?
I used essentially that same bash 2.01 on my bo box for at least two
months before upgrading to hamm, and never had any
cleto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
I need to install Bash 2.01 on a Debian 1.3.1 bo-based system.
How safe is it to use bash-2.01 from bo-unstable? Does anyone have had
problems with that?
Thanks for any tip!
Cleto
I used essentially that same bash 2.01 on my bo box for at least
Hello,
I need to install Bash 2.01 on a Debian 1.3.1 bo-based system.
How safe is it to use bash-2.01 from bo-unstable? Does anyone have had
problems with that?
Thanks for any tip!
Cleto
--
E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E
The packages come out for libc6 only. Statement in News @ www.debian.org
says that libc5 is still supported. I don't want do give me the trouble
and install libc6 now.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL
Michael Agbaglo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The packages come out for libc6 only. Statement in News @ www.debian.org
says that libc5 is still supported. I don't want do give me the trouble
and install libc6 now.
Don't know about the bind stuff, but there should be a copy of a bash
2.01 for bo
Wojtek Zabolotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
I'm looking for bash 2.01 for bo (1.3.1). Preferrably the source version.
I'd like to be able to use the Netscape's helpers [Netscape uses
the ((command ); command) syntax which is treated by bash as corrupted
arithmetic expression], but I
At 23:56 +0100 1998-02-19, Wojtek Zabolotny wrote:
Hi!
I'm looking for bash 2.01 for bo (1.3.1). Preferrably the source version.
I am building a 'bo-unstable' release of bash 2.01 as per your request. I
will email you again as soon as it is uploaded.
--
Joel Espy Klecker Debian GNU/Linux
Well, I went and used the autoup script for upgrading bo - hamm.
I ran into some problems, which, I suspect, were caused by my
custom-compiled bash 2.01 package. As I know that some people on this
list used that package, since I made it publicly available, I'm
putting this warning out to people
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Daniel Martin at cush wrote:
Well, I went and used the autoup script for upgrading bo - hamm.
I ran into some problems, which, I suspect, were caused by my
custom-compiled bash 2.01 package. As I know that some people on this
list used that package, since I made
Hi!
I'm looking for bash 2.01 for bo (1.3.1). Preferrably the source version.
I'd like to be able to use the Netscape's helpers [Netscape uses
the ((command ); command) syntax which is treated by bash as corrupted
arithmetic expression], but I don't want to upgrade to hamm
Thanks for the idea. I have already suggested to Scott
Ellis to put the locations of the packages mentioned in
the Mini-HOWTO for other brain-dead people like me.
Paul
On 07-Dec-97 Christopher Jason Morrone wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Paul Rightley
I am trying to follow Scott Ellis' Libc5/6 upgrade
mini-HOWTO to the letter (fearing for my system if I do not).
It says that, in order to upgrade bash to 2.01, I must first
install ncurses3.0_1.9.9e-2. However, I cannot find this
package anywhere (stable has ncurses3.0_1.9.9e-1 and it does
not
On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Paul Rightley wrote:
I am trying to follow Scott Ellis' Libc5/6 upgrade
mini-HOWTO to the letter (fearing for my system if I do not).
It says that, in order to upgrade bash to 2.01, I must first
install ncurses3.0_1.9.9e-2. However, I cannot find this
package anywhere
On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Paul Rightley wrote:
I am trying to follow Scott Ellis' Libc5/6 upgrade
mini-HOWTO to the letter (fearing for my system if I do not).
It says that, in order to upgrade bash to 2.01, I must first
install
Some days ago I asked for help on getting version 2.01-5 of bash to work
with vi-style line editing. It turned out that putting
set -o vi
in $HOME/.bashrc breaks vi-style line editing! I filed a bug report and
worked around it by putting
set editing-mode vi
set keymap vi
in
Has anyone found a way to use vi-style line editing in the 2.01-5 version
of bash?
When I do a
$ set -o vi
$ esck
to recall the last command, I just get a beep instead of the last
command. Has anyone found a way to use vi-style line editing in the 2.01-5
version of bash?
Thanks,
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
Has anyone found a way to use vi-style line editing in the 2.01-5 version
of bash?
When I do a
$ set -o vi
$ esck
to recall the last command, I just get a beep instead of the last
command. Has anyone found a way to use
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
Has anyone found a way to use vi-style line editing in the 2.01-5
version
of bash?
When I do a
$ set -o vi
$ esck
to recall the last command, I just get a beep instead
Hello,
I recently upgraded to libc6 and bash 2.01-5 using the libc6 Mini-HOWTO
(thanks Scott, I had no problems doing the upgrade).
I understand the upgraded version of bash is supposed to fix problems
with Netscape helpers, and one of the things I thought the upgrade would
do for me is fix
Also is there going to be a stable and safe way to upgrade to bash 2.01
(by way
of a deb package) any time soon? Of is there already and I don't know
about it?
I would like to install as few programs from unstable as possible.
I've built a dozen libc5 version deb's including bash 2.01
Could some one with an FTP site please let Hong upload his bash packages to it.
And if you do could you please tell me the address. I really would like to
have a working copy of Bash 2.01 as I can't seem to get one I have compiled to
work.
Thanks
On 26-Aug-97 H Huang wrote:
Also
Travis Cole wrote:
Could some one with an FTP site please let Hong upload his bash packages to
it.
And if you do could you please tell me the address. I really would like to
have a working copy of Bash 2.01 as I can't seem to get one I have compiled to
work.
You can get bash 2.01
is there going to be a stable and safe way to upgrade to bash 2.01 (by way
of a deb package) any time soon? Of is there already and I don't know about it?
I would like to install as few programs from unstable as possible.
Thanks.
-
E-Mail: Travis Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL
Hello,
I nearly crashed my system today when, after a successfull upgrade to
libc6 (according to the mini-HOWTO described in Debian-user)
I upgraded from bash 2.01-0.1 to bash 2.01-1.
I made the mistake of using dpkg-ftp; should maybe have done this one
by hand.
I do not wish to report
I had this problem a few days ago. An updated upgrade readme was
released a few days ago including the fix for your problem. I can't
remember the version numbers now, but, you need the latest libreadline
and libreadlineg (I think it ends in a -3). Everything worked great
after that.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Frits Daalmans wrote:
I nearly crashed my system today when, after a successfull upgrade to
libc6 (according to the mini-HOWTO described in Debian-user)
I upgraded from bash 2.01-0.1 to bash 2.01-1.
[snipped]
My question is:
In which
I took the recommendations from several readers of this list to try
the bash_2.01 upgrade from the unstable tree to fix the problems I was
having with Netscape 4.0x not being able to use the plugins for
various files (.pdf, .ram, etc.).
I quickly realized I was not so brave as to simply install
BG Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've noticed that both bo and hamm have bash as bash 2.0
I download bash 2.01 sources from the homepage. Then I tried to compile it,
but I didn't know what modifications to make.
Anyway, the result is that compiled file is much bigger, although it takes
Hong Huang wrote:
BG Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've noticed that both bo and hamm have bash as bash 2.0
I download bash 2.01 sources from the homepage. Then I tried to compile it,
but I didn't know what modifications to make.
Anyway, the result is that compiled file is much
Jens B. Jorgensen writes:
Hong Huang wrote:
BG Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bash 2.01 is in the Incoming directory of master.debian.org. However, it's
compiled against libc6. If you still stay with bo (1.3.1), you'll have to
grab the debianized source codes, make necessary modification
I've noticed that both bo and hamm have bash as bash 2.0
I download bash 2.01 sources from the homepage. Then I tried to compile it,
but I didn't know what modifications to make.
Anyway, the result is that compiled file is much bigger, although it takes
up less space in memory. But when I run
/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ NameVersionDescription
+++-===-==-
ii bash2.01-0.1 The GNU Bourne Again SHell
--
joost
32 matches
Mail list logo
