Hi Brian K Servis; unless Mutt is confused,on Aug 25, you wrote : > > Regardless of the status of libc6, the change over to 1.3.x or 1.3 Rev > x, the desire to keep changes to the stable tree to a minimum, or > whatever, this needs to be upgraded NOW. I have had a few other apps > crap out on this bash 2.0 bug and since the Debian system lives and > dies by bash it needs to be fixed A.S.A.P. by the maintainer, and or > the development team, not kind Jens who got sick of it enough to > download the source. > > My $0.02(US) > > Brian > > That was exactly my point when I started this thread. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I mean, it is nice to have a bleeding edge stuff, but something as crucial as bash should be fixed for older systems as well...I've also heard an argument that even the new one isn't as bug-free as we'd like but, hey, it is not like this one is completely bug-free -- so no loss there...
I thank Jens for being so precise with his instructions and size info. This might be the only way to go ...My question (I apologize if it is naive or stupid): will a binary thus build be good enough for other programs to install (dependancies and so forth..)? I mean I can compile the program but I have yet to learn how to do a Debian package, so if I leave the package as it is now and just copy the newly compiled binary on top of the old one (/bin/bash) am I safe to think that the Debian will still think it is a valid package? Thanks for all that cared enough to reply.. DamirN -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
