"stty -a" on both systems prints:

speed 38400 baud; rows 57; columns 237; line = 0;
intr = ^C; quit = ^\; erase = ^H; kill = ^U; eof = ^D; eol = <undef>; eol2
= <undef>; swtch = <undef>; start = ^Q; stop = ^S; susp = ^Z; rprnt = ^R;
werase = ^W; lnext = ^V; flush = ^O; min = 1; time = 0;
-parenb -parodd cs8 -hupcl -cstopb cread -clocal -crtscts
-ignbrk brkint -ignpar -parmrk -inpck -istrip -inlcr -igncr icrnl -ixon
-ixoff -iuclc -ixany imaxbel -iutf8
opost -olcuc -ocrnl onlcr -onocr -onlret -ofill -ofdel nl0 cr0 tab0 bs0 vt0
ff0
isig icanon iexten echo echoe echok -echonl -noflsh -xcase -tostop -echoprt
echoctl echoke

(The Debian 6.0.10 version had "ignpar", but changing it to match the Linux
Mint 17.2 system didn't change the behavior.)

readline is included in bash-4.4-beta.tar.gz, so they're both using the
same version.

On both systems, I built bash using:

    ./configure --prefix=...
    make
    make install

One possibly relevant observation: the output of "ldd" on the executables
differs. On Debian 6.0.10, it's:

$ ldd /usr/local/bin/bash
        linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007ffe2e775000)
        *libncurses.so.5 => /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x00007f730c0ae000)*
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00007f730beaa000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00007f730bb40000)
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f730c318000)

On Linux Mint 17.2, it's:

$ ldd /usr/local/bin/bash
        linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007ffddfd8b000)
        *libtinfo.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.5
(0x00007fd51ce92000)*
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2 (0x00007fd51cc8e000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fd51c8c8000)
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fd51d0e3000)

But I see the same difference on /bin/bash (4.1.5 on the Debian system,
4.3.11 on the Linux Mint system).

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> what does `stty -a` show on the two systems ?
>
> what version of readline are you using on both ?
> -mike
>



-- 
Keith Thompson <keith.s.thomp...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to