David Dindorp wrote:
Jokes aside, I can't respond to the fact that you don't believe
a word I say with anything else than "you obviously don't have
a clue".
Chris wasn't saying he didn't believe anything you say. Chris has
infinitely more credibility when it comes to judgements of Cygwin
complex
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:46:32PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Apr 10 13:28, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
>>>Looks like bash2.x install in /usr/bin while bash3.x installs in
>>>/usr/local/bin. Is that ok?
>>
>>No, it isn't. Cygwin programs get installed
On Apr 10 13:28, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
> > Looks like bash2.x install in /usr/bin while bash3.x installs in
> > /usr/local/bin. Is that ok?
>
> No, it isn't. Cygwin programs get installed in /usr/bin. If the upstream
> package doesn't go there by defau
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
> Folks,
>
> > If you are still willing then you've got the job.
> Alright, I'm on - despite a rough start!
Hans, if you plan to maintain a package, you really ought to subscribe to
the cygwin-apps list. Packaging discussions should take place there.
I'm sen
Folks,
> If you are still willing then you've got the job.
Alright, I'm on - despite a rough start!
> There is one potential problem in that we may need to adapt Pierre's
> patch to prevent problems with pid reuse to 3.0 if it is released.
How do I go about Pierre's pid patch?
> The next step
I wrote:
>> Cygwin is as complex as a Linux kernel.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> *snort* Your lack of credibility is showing.
Your lifelong devotion to being hateful
instead of constructive is showing?
Jokes aside, I can't respond to the fact that you don't believe
a word I say with anything els
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 03:40:12AM +0200, David Dindorp wrote:
>Cygwin is as complex as a Linux kernel.
*snort* Your lack of credibility is showing.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:
Dave Korn wrote:
If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw
in a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
>>>
>>> http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PPAST
>>
>> Obviously, if I were able to produce a simple testcase, I would have.
>> Duh ;-).
>
> There's no
> There is one potential problem in that we may need to adapt Pierre's
> patch to prevent problems with pid reuse to 3.0 if it is released.
Besides that, looking at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-3.0-
patches/, I see 16 patches. I hope all of those will be applied to a
Cygwin bash 3.0 packa
Original Message
>From: David Dindorp
>Sent: 08 April 2005 16:14
>>> If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw in
>>> a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
>>
>> http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PPAST
>
> Obviously, if I were able to produce a simple
>> If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw in
>> a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
>
> http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PPAST
Obviously, if I were able to produce a simple testcase, I would have.
Duh ;-).
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#
>> If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw in
>> a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
>
> If you are happy to throw a bunch of manhours to try and find out
what's
> wrong, then the solution is obvious -- learn cygwin that well.
Manhours. Not entire lif
Original Message
>From: David Dindorp
>Sent: 08 April 2005 14:06
>
> If you can tell me how to proceed from here, I'd be happy to throw in
> a bunch of manhours to try and find out what's wrong.
http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PPAST
I'm surprised, myself, I find bash very reliable.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:06:02PM +0200, David Dindorp wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Apr 8 12:19, David Dindorp wrote:
>>> To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash
>>> problem, or perhaps a "bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin
>>> because the maintainer ha
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 8 12:19, David Dindorp wrote:
>> To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash
>> problem, or perhaps a "bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin
>> because the maintainer haven't had the time" problem. It's running
>> quite stable under 1.5
Brian Dessent wrote:
> David Dindorp wrote:
>> Uhm. No it's not..
>> Bash 2.05b is so unstable under Cygwin that it classifies as a
>> volatile chemical. At least if you put it under a lot of pressure -
>> a normal users everyday use it may cope fine with, which is probably
>> how it's used by mo
David Dindorp wrote:
> Uhm. No it's not..
> Bash 2.05b is so unstable under Cygwin that it classifies as a
> volatile chemical. At least if you put it under a lot of pressure -
> a normal users everyday use it may cope fine with, which is probably
> how it's used by most people in here anyway.
>
On Apr 8 12:19, David Dindorp wrote:
> To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash
> problem, or perhaps a "bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin
> because the maintainer haven't had the time" problem. It's running
> quite stable under 1.5.10, it sucks with 1.5.12 and
Brian Dessent wrote:
> Furthermore, threads in the past have
> expressed the fact that 2.05b has been very stable and both Ronald and
> others have agreed that any major changes in bash would have to be
> done very carefully so as not to cause instability.
Uhm. No it's not..
Bash 2.05b is so unst
On Apr 7 22:20, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:10:14PM -0700, Hans Horn wrote:
> >Nevermind! Sorry, folks - I really didn't mean to upset anybody! Bye then!
>
> No, no. Please. We are looking for a new bash maintainer. We haven't
> heard from the maintainer in a while a
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:10:14PM -0700, Hans Horn wrote:
>Nevermind! Sorry, folks - I really didn't mean to upset anybody! Bye then!
No, no. Please. We are looking for a new bash maintainer. We haven't
heard from the maintainer in a while and private email to him bounces.
That is what prompt
Nevermind! Sorry, folks - I really didn't mean to upset anybody! Bye then!
H.
Brian Dessent wrote:
> Jonathan Arnold wrote:
>
>> Hans Horn wrote:
>>> Oops - didn't see this one! Just posted offer as bash voluteer
>>> myself!
>>> Was looking for bash 3.0 in the archives.
>>> If Jonathan still want
Jonathan Arnold wrote:
> Hans Horn wrote:
> > Oops - didn't see this one! Just posted offer as bash voluteer myself!
> > Was looking for bash 3.0 in the archives.
> > If Jonathan still wants to maintain bash 3.0, of course, I will withdraw my
> > offer.
>
> Yeah, sorry, I just haven't been able
Jonathan Arnold wrote:
Hans Horn wrote:
Oops - didn't see this one! Just posted offer as bash voluteer myself!
Was looking for bash 3.0 in the archives.
If Jonathan still wants to maintain bash 3.0, of course, I will
withdraw my offer.
Yeah, sorry, I just haven't been able to get to it - crunch t
Hans Horn wrote:
Oops - didn't see this one! Just posted offer as bash voluteer myself!
Was looking for bash 3.0 in the archives.
If Jonathan still wants to maintain bash 3.0, of course, I will withdraw my
offer.
Yeah, sorry, I just haven't been able to get to it - crunch time here at
work. If y
Oops - didn't see this one! Just posted offer as bash voluteer myself!
Was looking for bash 3.0 in the archives.
If Jonathan still wants to maintain bash 3.0, of course, I will withdraw my
offer.
H.
Tim Prince wrote:
> At 06:35 AM 3/18/2005, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
>
>
>> I don't know what to do
At 06:35 AM 3/18/2005, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
I don't know what to do with the patches that I find in the
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-3.0-patches/
folder. How do you apply patches for GNU source?
info patch
typically,
patch -p1 file.c
Tim Prince
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/
27 matches
Mail list logo
