status of bash-3.0-12 (was: Re: How do I make /bin/sh=sh)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

status of bash-3.0-12 (was: Re: How do I make /bin/sh=sh)

Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:40:06PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:

> > > Actually, I'm playing with a change to bash, soon to be bash-3.0-12,
> > > where the postinstall script will leave /bin/sh alone if its timestamp
> > > is newer than /bin/bash.  
> >
> > For one release. What happens after the next upgrade to bash?
>
> My plan for bash-3.0-12 and beyond is to only upgrade /bin/sh to the
> newest bash version if /bin/sh has an older timestamp than /bin/bash,
> and is not ksh or zsh.  So, using 'touch -d "+2 years" /bin/sh.exe'
> would exempt /bin/sh from updates for the next two years, no matter
> how often bash upgrades occur in the meantime, and no matter if
> /bin/sh is ash because you wanted it that way (at the expense of
> having a file modified 2 years in the future!  Isn't time travel fun? :)

Eric,
I see about a week after the above, you put out an experimental
bash-3.0-12.  I don't see any other announcement of it; is the above
the only difference in it?  Should it still be experimental?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: status of bash-3.0-12

Eric Blake (cygwin)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes on 12/15/2005 1:43 AM:
>>My plan for bash-3.0-12 and beyond is to only upgrade /bin/sh to the
>>newest bash version if /bin/sh has an older timestamp than /bin/bash,
>>and is not ksh or zsh.
>
> I see about a week after the above, you put out an experimental
> bash-3.0-12.  I don't see any other announcement of it; is the above
> the only difference in it?  Should it still be experimental?

Aargh.  bash-3.0-12 depends on snapshots (it won't work with
cygwin-1.5.18).  I am waffling between putting out a bash-3.0-13 that
works with cygwin-1.5.18, vs. waiting for cygwin-1.5.19.  Meanwhile, I am
also in the middle of trying to build libreadline6-5.1-1, so that I can
then build bash-3.1-1.

OK then, I guess you've convinced me.  I will downgrade my cygwin to
1.5.18 long enough to build bash-3.0-13 (hopefully within the next week),
announce it, before focusing on building bash-3.1-1 as the new
experimental version that depends on a snapshot.

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             [hidden email]
volunteer cygwin bash maintainer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDoWuD84KuGfSFAYARAoQwAJ9ioQ0d09/2quKkjiYqsZxzXVlQLACeOWci
ZE/1r64rnLBq+sTcuYsudzA=
=uenh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/