On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, zzapper wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:40:59 +0100, wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:09:28 -0500 (EST), wrote:
> > >
> > >>An updated version of zsh (zsh-4.2.0-1) has been released and should be
> > >>at a mirror near you real soon.
> > >>
> > >Hi I saw zsh 4.2.0 download this morning when I ran my daily setup
> > >however (having reset my PC as requested)
> > >
> > >zsh --version
> > >zsh 4.1.1 (i686-pc-cygwin)
> > >
> > >>whence zsh
> > >/usr/bin/zsh
> > >
> > I had to rename zsh-4.2.0.exe to zsh.exe myself (is that
> > normal/correct?)
> >
> > zzapper (vim, cygwin, wiki & zsh)
>
> Sounds like a packaging bug. The archive contains "/usr/bin/zsh.exe" as a
> symbolic link to "/usr/bin/zsh-4.2.0.exe". This will cause zsh to not
> work from batch files and shortcuts (!).
I don't think it will. I see /usr/bin/zsh.exe being turned into a real
file, during install, not a symlink, and /usr/bin/zsh has always been a
symlink, since day one, and I've not seen any problems reported to this
effect. I think zzapper's problem may be because setup didn't remove
everthing first or perhaps he installed zsh through some other mechanism?
> What's weird is the fact that running "zsh" showed version 4.1.1. Even
> with the symlink this should not have happened. I assume running
> "zsh-4.2.0" would show version 4.2.0, right? It would be interesting to
> see if you have other copies of "zsh" in your PATH, which you can find out
> by running "/bin/which -a zsh".
You can also type "echo $ZSH_VERSION" to get your current shell's version.
Oh, and btw, it does report "4.2.0" for me on all systems I've tested on.
> Igor
--
Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
