On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:40:06PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote: > > > Actually, I'm playing with a change to bash, soon to be bash-3.0-12, > > > where the postinstall script will leave /bin/sh alone if its timestamp > > > is newer than /bin/bash. > > > > For one release. What happens after the next upgrade to bash? > > My plan for bash-3.0-12 and beyond is to only upgrade /bin/sh to the > newest bash version if /bin/sh has an older timestamp than /bin/bash, > and is not ksh or zsh. So, using 'touch -d "+2 years" /bin/sh.exe' > would exempt /bin/sh from updates for the next two years, no matter > how often bash upgrades occur in the meantime, and no matter if > /bin/sh is ash because you wanted it that way (at the expense of > having a file modified 2 years in the future! Isn't time travel fun? :)
Eric, I see about a week after the above, you put out an experimental bash-3.0-12. I don't see any other announcement of it; is the above the only difference in it? Should it still be experimental? -- 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/