Your message dated Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:57:54 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#263024: bash: memleak problem
has caused the Debian Bug report #263024,
regarding bash: memleak problem
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)


-- 
263024: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=263024
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: bash
Version: 2.05b-22
Severity: important

Hi,
do a `$(seq 1000000)' or greater, bash will eat all the memory, and when
the command fail, bash don't release the memory


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.7-1-686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR@euro, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR@euro

Versions of packages bash depends on:
ii  base-files                  3.0.16       Debian base system miscellaneous f
ii  libc6                       2.3.2.ds1-13 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libncurses5                 5.4-4        Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii  passwd                      1:4.0.3-29.1 Change and administer password and

-- no debconf information


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 5.0-6
Control: severity -1 normal
Control: tags -1 wontfix

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:54:39 +0200 matthieu <[email protected]> wrote:
Package: bash
Version: 2.05b-22
Severity: important

Hi,
do a `$(seq 1000000)' or greater, bash will eat all the memory, and when
the command fail, bash don't release the memory

The upstream maintainer stated in https://bugs.debian.org/263024#20 that this behavior is the desired one. And in the intervening 20 years the code is probably behaving in a different way.

Regards,

--
Gioele Barabucci

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to