[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My trials upgrading to hamm/Bad bash 2.01-5 for bo References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Martin <martind> Date: 20 Feb 1998 22:49:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: Daniel Martin's message of "18 Feb 1998 20:31:11 -0500" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.3 - "Vatican City"
(This message is being CCed to people whom I've pointed to my bash_2.01-5 for bo in the past) As I said in my earlier post on this thread, I had compiled some bash 2.01 binaries and made them available under http://www.math.jhu.edu/~martind/bash/ - however, as I discovered when I upgraded to hamm, using those .deb files will make the autoup script not work. I now have at that location some information on fixing one's system if one goes ahead and uses the autoup script anyway. I also have re-done my bash 2.01 for bo .deb's so that they obey the debian version numbering scheme; these new packages are linked off of http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dtm12/bash/ - if you are using my bash 2.01 for bo .deb files, you are strongly encouraged to either switch to these packages which have the correct version numbers, or to wait a few days for a bash 2.01 to appear in bo-unstable. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I found recompiling bash 2.01 for bo a bit annoying; on that page with the new packages is a link to a patchfile I created against the hamm source tree. Unless you've already gone through the process of reworking the debian/* files to build nicely under (and for) bo, you might want to use my patch as a starting point. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
