Re: Bash 2.01 with bo

Hello, I need to install Bash 2.01 on a Debian 1.3.1 bo-based system. How safe is it to use bash-2.01 from bo-unstable? Does anyone have had problems with that? I used essentially that same bash 2.01 on my bo box for at least two months before upgrading to hamm, and never had any

Re: Bash 2.01 with bo

cleto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello, I need to install Bash 2.01 on a Debian 1.3.1 bo-based system. How safe is it to use bash-2.01 from bo-unstable? Does anyone have had problems with that? Thanks for any tip! Cleto I used essentially that same bash 2.01 on my bo box for at least

Bash 2.01 with bo

Hello, I need to install Bash 2.01 on a Debian 1.3.1 bo-based system. How safe is it to use bash-2.01 from bo-unstable? Does anyone have had problems with that? Thanks for any tip! Cleto -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E

Re: HELP! Bash 2.01 for bo?

Wojtek Zabolotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! I'm looking for bash 2.01 for bo (1.3.1). Preferrably the source version. I'd like to be able to use the Netscape's helpers [Netscape uses the ((command ); command) syntax which is treated by bash as corrupted arithmetic expression], but I

Re: HELP! Bash 2.01 for bo?

At 23:56 +0100 1998-02-19, Wojtek Zabolotny wrote: Hi! I'm looking for bash 2.01 for bo (1.3.1). Preferrably the source version. I am building a 'bo-unstable' release of bash 2.01 as per your request. I will email you again as soon as it is uploaded. -- Joel Espy Klecker Debian GNU/Linux

HELP! Bash 2.01 for bo?

Hi! I'm looking for bash 2.01 for bo (1.3.1). Preferrably the source version. I'd like to be able to use the Netscape's helpers [Netscape uses the ((command ); command) syntax which is treated by bash as corrupted arithmetic expression], but I don't want to upgrade to hamm