On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 10:27:56AM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> They're always built and installed when you use `make install'. The
> problem, of course, is users (some) or distros (all) who don't use a
^^^ Slackware does
> simple `make install', bu
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025, at 9:29 AM, Stan Marsh wrote:
> I.e., yes, I get the theoretical reasons, but it generates confusion
> for the user
>
> [...]
>
> Of course,
> you still have to "enable" them in your script or shell in order to
> actually use them.
Exactly, you have to explicitly opt into us
On 6/6/25 12:21 AM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 at 20:22, Duncan Roe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:43:00AM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
Is it useful to combine multiple selected fields (-f) into one space-
separated field so `cut' can put the selected portions of each line into
On 6/6/25 9:29 AM, Stan Marsh wrote:
It seems to me they should all be compiled and installed - all the time. Of
course,
you still have to "enable" them in your script or shell in order to actually
use them.
They're always built and installed when you use `make install'. The
problem, of cou
>On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, at 8:37 AM, Stan Marsh wrote:
>> Actually, I am not too fond of the habit of having builtins (particularly
>> those supplied as part of the distribution) with the same name as well-known
>> Unix commands.
>
>It allows for potential drop-in replacement if the external commands
++
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025, 1:10 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 14:19:33 +1000, Duncan Roe wrote:
> > If one is building bash from source, then (most of) the loadable builtins
> > are built and installed (at least since bash 4.4).
>
> That hasn't been my experience. "./configure"
On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 14:19:33 +1000, Duncan Roe wrote:
> If one is building bash from source, then (most of) the loadable builtins
> are built and installed (at least since bash 4.4).
That hasn't been my experience. "./configure" followed by "make"
puts a "bash" executable file in the top-leve
