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 upgra
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
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.
Michael Agbaglo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The packages come out for libc6 only. Statement in News @ www.debian.org
> says that libc5 is still supported. I don't want do give me the trouble
> and install libc6 now.
Don't know about the bind stuff, but there should be
The packages come out for libc6 only. Statement in News @ www.debian.org
says that libc5 is still supported. I don't want do give me the trouble
and install libc6 now.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTEC
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 "
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
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 wan
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Daniel Martin at cush wrote:
> Well, I went and used the autoup script for upgrading bo -> hamm.
> I ran into some problems, which, I suspect, were caused by my
> custom-compiled bash 2.01 package. As I know that some people on this
> list used that package,
Well, I went and used the autoup script for upgrading bo -> hamm.
I ran into some problems, which, I suspect, were caused by my
custom-compiled bash 2.01 package. As I know that some people on this
list used that package, since I made it publicly available, I'm
putting this warning out t
Thanks for the idea. I have already suggested to Scott
Ellis to put the locations of the packages mentioned in
the Mini-HOWTO for other brain-dead people like me.
Paul
On 07-Dec-97 Christopher Jason Morrone wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Paul Rightle
On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Paul Rightley wrote:
>
> > I am trying to follow Scott Ellis' Libc5/6 upgrade
> > mini-HOWTO to the letter (fearing for my system if I do not).
> > It says that, in order to upgrade bash to 2.01, I must first
> > install ncurses3.0
On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Paul Rightley wrote:
> I am trying to follow Scott Ellis' Libc5/6 upgrade
> mini-HOWTO to the letter (fearing for my system if I do not).
> It says that, in order to upgrade bash to 2.01, I must first
> install ncurses3.0_1.9.9e-2. However, I cannot find this
> package anywher
I am trying to follow Scott Ellis' Libc5/6 upgrade
mini-HOWTO to the letter (fearing for my system if I do not).
It says that, in order to upgrade bash to 2.01, I must first
install ncurses3.0_1.9.9e-2. However, I cannot find this
package anywhere (stable has ncurses3.0_1.9.9e-1 and it does
not ap
Some days ago I asked for help on getting version 2.01-5 of bash to work
with vi-style line editing. It turned out that putting
set -o vi
in $HOME/.bashrc breaks vi-style line editing! I filed a bug report and
worked around it by putting
set editing-mode vi
set keymap vi
in $HOME/.in
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 Joost Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
>
>> Has anyone found a way to use vi-style line editing in the 2.01-5
>> version
>> of bash?
>>
>> When I do a
>>
>> $ set -o vi
>> $ k
>>
>> to recall the last command, I just
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
> Has anyone found a way to use vi-style line editing in the 2.01-5 version
> of bash?
>
> When I do a
>
> $ set -o vi
> $ k
>
> to recall the last command, I just get a "beep" instead of the last
> command. Has anyone found a way to use
Has anyone found a way to use vi-style line editing in the 2.01-5 version
of bash?
When I do a
$ set -o vi
$ k
to recall the last command, I just get a "beep" instead of the last
command. Has anyone found a way to use vi-style line editing in the 2.01-5
version of bash?
Thanks,
Kingsle
Hello,
I recently upgraded to libc6 and bash 2.01-5 using the libc6 Mini-HOWTO
(thanks Scott, I had no problems doing the upgrade).
I understand the upgraded version of bash is supposed to fix problems
with Netscape helpers, and one of the things I thought the upgrade would
do for me is fix a
Travis Cole wrote:
>
> Could some one with an FTP site please let Hong upload his bash packages to
> it.
> And if you do could you please tell me the address. I really would like to
> have a working copy of Bash 2.01 as I can't seem to get one I have compiled to
> wor
Could some one with an FTP site please let Hong upload his bash packages to it.
And if you do could you please tell me the address. I really would like to
have a working copy of Bash 2.01 as I can't seem to get one I have compiled to
work.
Thanks
On 26-Aug-97 H Huang wrote:
>
&g
> Also is there going to be a stable and safe way to upgrade to bash 2.01
> (by way
> of a deb package) any time soon? Of is there already and I don't know
> about it?
> I would like to install as few programs from unstable as possible.
I've built a dozen libc5 ver
there going to be a stable and safe way to upgrade to bash 2.01 (by way
of a deb package) any time soon? Of is there already and I don't know about it?
I would like to install as few programs from unstable as possible.
Thanks.
-
E-Mail: Travis Cole <[EM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Frits Daalmans wrote:
> I nearly crashed my system today when, after a successfull upgrade to
> libc6 (according to the mini-HOWTO described in Debian-user)
> I upgraded from bash 2.01-0.1 to bash 2.01-1.
[snipped]
> My quest
I had this problem a few days ago. An updated upgrade readme was
released a few days ago including the fix for your problem. I can't
remember the version numbers now, but, you need the latest libreadline
and libreadlineg (I think it ends in a -3). Everything worked great
after that.
Brandon
Hello,
I nearly crashed my system today when, after a successfull upgrade to
libc6 (according to the mini-HOWTO described in Debian-user)
I upgraded from bash 2.01-0.1 to bash 2.01-1.
I made the mistake of using dpkg-ftp; should maybe have done this one
by hand.
I do not wish to report this as
I took the recommendations from several readers of this list to try
the bash_2.01 upgrade from the unstable tree to fix the problems I was
having with Netscape 4.0x not being able to use the plugins for
various files (.pdf, .ram, etc.).
I quickly realized I was not so brave as to simply install t
Jens B. Jorgensen writes:
>
>Hong Huang wrote:
>>
>> BG Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> bash 2.01 is in the Incoming directory of master.debian.org. However, it's
>> compiled against libc6. If you still stay with bo (1.3.1), you'
Hong Huang wrote:
>
> BG Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've noticed that both bo and hamm have bash as bash 2.0
> >
> > I download bash 2.01 sources from the homepage. Then I tried to compile it,
> > but I didn't know what modifica
BG Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've noticed that both bo and hamm have bash as bash 2.0
>
> I download bash 2.01 sources from the homepage. Then I tried to compile it,
> but I didn't know what modifications to make.
>
> Anyway, the result is that compile
Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ NameVersionDescription
+++-===-==-
ii bash 2.01-0.1 The GNU Bourne Again SHel
I've noticed that both bo and hamm have bash as bash 2.0
I download bash 2.01 sources from the homepage. Then I tried to compile it,
but I didn't know what modifications to make.
Anyway, the result is that compiled file is much bigger, although it takes
up less space in memory. But whe
32 matches
Mail list logo
