Re: bash crash processing b=b+1 after array read

On 2/24/13 11:59 PM, phil colbourn wrote: > Bash Version: 4.2 > Patch Level: 37 > Release Status: release > > Description: > > Within (( )), 'b=b+1' will crash bash with a segment fault if it follows an > array read such as 'a=X[b]'. Thanks for the report and the test case. This was reported p

"The \". ~/.bash_aliases\" on bashrc don't load file"

Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]: Machine: i686 OS: linux-gnu Compiler: gcc Compilation CFLAGS:  -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686' -DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-linux-gnu' -DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/locale' -DPACKAGE='ba

Re: "The \". ~/.bash_aliases\" on bashrc don't load file"

On 2013-02-25 21:27, Uroz Gonzalez, Jose Luis wrote: > Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]: > Machine: i686 > OS: linux-gnu > Compiler: gcc > Compilation CFLAGS:  -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686' > -DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-linux-gnu'

Re: "RE:Re: \"The \\\". ~/.bash_aliases\\\" on bashrc don't load file\""

On 2013-02-26 01:17, Uroz Gonzalez, Jose Luis wrote: > Hi Chris, > > The output is: > > es un alias de `cd ~' ( . is an alias of "cd ~") > > My apologies. > > Some days ago I tested aliases to best use and tested this, but not deleted. > On restarting system I forgot completely. Sorry. > > From no

Re: cd -e returns syntax error

Hey, On 2013-02-24 00:54, Dan Douglas wrote: > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 02:43:03 PM Chris Down wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Unless I'm misunderstanding how it should work, `cd -P -e' does not work as > > specified by the documentation. From `help cd': > > Yep, see: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/h

"RE:Re: \"The \\\". ~/.bash_aliases\\\" on bashrc don't load file\""

Hi Chris, The output is: es un alias de `cd ~' ( . is an alias of "cd ~") My apologies. Some days ago I tested aliases to best use and tested this, but not deleted. On restarting system I forgot completely. Sorry. >From now I use first, type "alias to use". Corrected the mistake, the output

"RE:Re: \"RE:Re: \\\"The \\\\\\\". ~/.bash_aliases\\\\\\\" on bashrc don't load ""file\\\"\""

Hi Chris, Yes, I use temporally my ISP, wanad... and don't have too much control over. In few time i have my servers up and running again, and full control. Greetings, Jose Luis PS: Hope more luck now in format. ---Mensaje original--- Don't worry about it. As an aside, y

Should this be this way?

My login shell is /bin/bash (i.e. not /bin/sh); SHELL=/bin/bash as well. Typing 'which bash' gives /bin/bash, and whence bash: bash is /bin/bash. I had the foll0wing script which acts differently based on whether or not it has a #!/bin/bash at the top: (i.e., as it is displayed below, it fails; on

Re: gnu parallel in the bash manual

Chet Ramey wrote: > On 2/16/13 3:50 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote: >> I don't quite see the point of having gnu parallel discussed in the >> bash reference manual. > I was asked to add that in May, 2010 by Ole Tange and Richard Stallman. Maybe now that it was done, it can be removed? Or did they as

Re: Should this be this way?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: > My login shell is /bin/bash (i.e. not /bin/sh); SHELL=/bin/bash as well. > Typing 'which bash' gives /bin/bash, and whence bash: bash is /bin/bash. > > I had the foll0wing script which acts differently based on > whether or not it has a #!/bin

Re: Should this be this way?

Sorry, forgot: > bash --version GNU bash, version 4.2.10(1)-release (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) > uname -a Linux Ishtar 3.7.6-Isht-Van #4 SMP PREEMPT Thu Feb 7 01:34:39 PST 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux --- I just can see why it should execute differently... very weird.

Re: Should this be this way?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: > Sorry, forgot: > > bash --version > GNU bash, version 4.2.10(1)-release (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) > > uname -a > Linux Ishtar 3.7.6-Isht-Van #4 SMP PREEMPT Thu Feb 7 01:34:39 PST 2013 > x86_64 > x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > --- > I just can see why

Re: Should this be this way?

DJ Mills wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Linda Walsh > wrote: > > You didn't answer the question... how did you call the script? > > ''sh script'' ? --- I typed the script name interactively on the command line -- the way I thought most people ran scripts. I m

Re: gnu parallel in the bash manual

Chet Ramey wrote: > On 2/25/13 8:07 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: >> Chet Ramey wrote: >>> On 2/16/13 3:50 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote: I don't quite see the point of having gnu parallel discussed in the bash reference manual. >>> I was asked to add that in May, 2010 by Ole Tange and Richard Stall

Re: gnu parallel in the bash manual

Am 26.02.2013 03:36, schrieb Linda Walsh: > > Chet Ramey wrote: >> On 2/25/13 8:07 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: >>> Chet Ramey wrote: On 2/16/13 3:50 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote: > I don't quite see the point of having gnu parallel discussed in the > bash reference manual. I was asked to ad

Re: Should this be this way?

On 2013-02-25 18:27, Linda Walsh wrote: > I mentioned that everything in my ENV and usage pointed at /bin/bash. You gave $SHELL, which is not really relevant (it doesn't necessarily reference your login shell, or your current shell either). > Why would I do that, and then use 'sh script'? > > Wou

Re: Should this be this way?

Chris Down wrote: > On 2013-02-25 18:27, Linda Walsh wrote: >> I mentioned that everything in my ENV and usage pointed at /bin/bash. > > You gave $SHELL, which is not really relevant (it doesn't necessarily > reference > your login shell, or your current shell either). I also gave

Re: Should this be this way?

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: > My login shell is /bin/bash (i.e. not /bin/sh); SHELL=/bin/bash as well. > Typing 'which bash' gives /bin/bash, and whence bash: bash is /bin/bash. > > I had the foll0wing script which acts differently based on > whether or not it has a #!/bin/