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. Corinn

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) th

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:

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

Re: maintaining bash

"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:

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 p

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/

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 defau

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 sen

Re: maintaining bash

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 ba