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
to a windows
> machine, which is probably why there have been few bash updates. On
> the other hand, he has also said nothing to indicate that he does not
> wish to continue maintaining bash. Furthermore, threads in the past
> have expressed the fact that 2.05b has been very stable and
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-02/msg00263.html>. He has
said repeatedly that he has been busy and without access to a windows
machine, which is probably why there have been few bash updates. On the
other hand, he has also said nothing to indicate that he does not wish
to continue maintaining ba
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/
If no one has stepped forward, I'd be willing to try and maintain the
bash package. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the whole process, and
the Packages page confuses me, so you'll have to guide me along gently.
Here's what I've done so far:
* Download the bash-3.0 source
* Built it successfully
28 matches
Mail list logo
