On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>In a message written on Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:48:45PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
>> Lucky for me (who wants a static Bash), I don't have to make the
>> decission -- ports are frozen and have been for a while.
>
>This line of thinking seems a bit silly to
In a message written on Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:48:45PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> Lucky for me (who wants a static Bash), I don't have to make the
> decission -- ports are frozen and have been for a while.
This line of thinking seems a bit silly to me. We have a long
discussion documenting th
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:27:03PM -0800, Sean McNeil wrote:
> Also, I do not see any reason why bash should remain linked -static
> for -current.
Lucky for me (who wants a static Bash), I don't have to make the
decission -- ports are frozen and have been for a while.
_
