Hi Chet,
I didn't realize until much later that we were corresponding off-list
when I sent you the OS/2 patch. I'm just following up to make sure you
didn't miss it. I actually had expected you to tell me to fix some
things with it and re-submit, so I was waiting to hear back before
doing any more
On Friday 23 May 2008, Brendan Oakley wrote:
> I would like to see them included, so the crucial part of my question
> is whether it would be proper to submit any incremental patches for
> inclusion even while the port itself is, in some ways, incomplete; or
> whether I should have everything right
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 May 2008, Brendan Oakley wrote:
>> With some effort and help, I have Bash 3.1 built and mostly working
>> under OS/2. This uses gcc 3.3.5 with "kLIBC" 0.6.3, rather than the
>> old EMX tools. 3.2 needs a bit
On Thursday 22 May 2008, Brendan Oakley wrote:
> With some effort and help, I have Bash 3.1 built and mostly working
> under OS/2. This uses gcc 3.3.5 with "kLIBC" 0.6.3, rather than the
> old EMX tools. 3.2 needs a bit more work, and some of the patches
> might need some more polish. My questions:
Hello.
With some effort and help, I have Bash 3.1 built and mostly working
under OS/2. This uses gcc 3.3.5 with "kLIBC" 0.6.3, rather than the
old EMX tools. 3.2 needs a bit more work, and some of the patches
might need some more polish. My questions:
Are you interested in these patches?
If so,
