Re: maintaining bash
I hereby withdraw my voluntary offer as bash maintainer! H.
Re: maintaining bash
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 -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: maintaining bash
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 my reply there as well, and setting Reply-To: appropriately. If you don't want to actually receive cygwin-apps messages, but want to be able to post, you can subscribe to cygwin-apps-allow instead (see http://cygwin.com/ml/lists.html#rbl-sucks). 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? 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 part) test that the fix actually works. The next step is to create a package and offer it on the cygwin-apps mailing list. Please look at the archives for examples of how this is done. I'm a total virgin at this. I'm afraid I need help, professional help! WHAT?! Do you know how much those people CHARGE?! ;-) Right now I'm looking at http://cygwin.com/setup.html, as well as what ships with the binary and source distribution of the current cygwin bash. 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, you'll need to patch the sources in such a way that the files do get installed there. As to Andrew Schulman's complaint about the extra-space-after-the-prompt bug (http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2005-04/msg00325.html, first reported at http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-bugs/2005/03/25/0002.html), I believe to have fixed the problem. How do I about getting this fix (if we conclude that it is indeed working) back into mainstream bash? You generate a patch (using diff -puN against the original sources), make sure that the patch contains only the fix for the above problem, and then submit the patch to the upstream batch distribution using the means no doubt documented on the bash homepage. HTH, Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
Re: maintaining bash
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 upstream package doesn't go there by default, you'll need to patch the sources in ^ ...and can't be made to go there via standard means... such a way that the files do get installed there. Urgh! Bold hint: ./configure --prefix=/usr Or you could read the sources above to include the build script. :-) (Yeah, I'm weaseling my way out of it. Corinna, you are, of course, correct.) Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
Re: maintaining bash
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, you'll need to patch the sources in such a way that the files do get installed there. Urgh! Bold hint: ./configure --prefix=/usr Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: maintaining bash
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 part) test that the fix actually works. 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? H.
Re: maintaining bash
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. If the upstream package doesn't go there by default, you'll need to patch the sources in such a way that the files do get installed there. Urgh! Bold hint: ./configure --prefix=/usr Yes, AFAIK, many packages need a command line hint like the above to tell them not install into /usr/local/bin. cgf
Re: maintaining bash
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: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwinm=109867031200979w=2 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 changes from 2.05patched vs 3.0patched (also from 2.05patched vs 3.0unpatched) are pervasive. In fact, so pervasive, that I don't feel that I have enough information / insider knowledge to apply the changes from 2.05patched to 3.0 myself. Would it be possible that Pierre (Pierre Humblet?) could take a look at it, please? H.
Re: maintaining bash
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 changes from 2.05patched vs 3.0patched (also from 2.05patched vs 3.0unpatched) are pervasive. In fact, so pervasive, that I don't feel that I have enough information / insider knowledge to apply the changes from 2.05patched to 3.0 myself. Would it be possible that Pierre (Pierre Humblet?) could take a look at it, please? Ronalds release announcements contained a fair amount of detail about what patches were being added: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwinm=110114855931557w=2 The rest are probably the upstream ones at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-2.05b-patches/.
Re: maintaining bash
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 time here at work. If you want to give it a whirl, feel free, Hans. Just so everyone is clear here... The current bash maintainer is Ronald Landheer-Cieslak, who was still around and answering bash questions as of Feb: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-02/msg00263.html. He has said 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 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 this to the cygwin-apps list which is where discussion of packaging should take place. Brian
