Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:06:49 -0800 (PST)
From:	"Peter A. Castro" <doctor AT fruitbat DOT org>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: zsh-4.2.0-1 (Attn: zsh maintainer)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.56.0403290957310.18236@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.53.0403291347470.5939@gremlin.fruitbat.org>
References:	<20040326150928 DOT 0CD6C400140 AT redhat DOT com> <f1vf601frki7ehid0hv5p9v4fqsflv6kh3 AT 4ax DOT com> <22ag60ps55ncebbc9dm2u1lele15os5mpp AT 4ax DOT com> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0403290957310 DOT 18236 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, zzapper wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:40:59 +0100,  wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:09:28 -0500 (EST),  wrote:
> > >
> > >>An updated version of zsh (zsh-4.2.0-1) has been released and should be
> > >>at a mirror near you real soon.
> > >>
> > >Hi I saw zsh 4.2.0 download this morning when I ran my daily setup
> > >however (having reset my PC as requested)
> > >
> > >zsh --version
> > >zsh 4.1.1 (i686-pc-cygwin)
> > >
> > >>whence zsh
> > >/usr/bin/zsh
> > >
> > I had to rename zsh-4.2.0.exe to zsh.exe myself (is that
> > normal/correct?)
> >
> > zzapper (vim, cygwin, wiki & zsh)
>
> Sounds like a packaging bug.  The archive contains "/usr/bin/zsh.exe" as a
> symbolic link to "/usr/bin/zsh-4.2.0.exe".  This will cause zsh to not
> work from batch files and shortcuts (!).

I don't think it will.  I see /usr/bin/zsh.exe being turned into a real
file, during install, not a symlink, and /usr/bin/zsh has always been a
symlink, since day one, and I've not seen any problems reported to this
effect.  I think zzapper's problem may be because setup didn't remove
everthing first or perhaps he installed zsh through some other mechanism?

> What's weird is the fact that running "zsh" showed version 4.1.1.  Even
> with the symlink this should not have happened.  I assume running
> "zsh-4.2.0" would show version 4.2.0, right?  It would be interesting to
> see if you have other copies of "zsh" in your PATH, which you can find out
> by running "/bin/which -a zsh".

You can also type "echo $ZSH_VERSION" to get your current shell's version.
Oh, and btw, it does report "4.2.0" for me on all systems I've tested on.

> 	Igor

-- 
Peter A. Castro <doctor AT fruitbat DOT org> or <Peter DOT Castro AT oracle DOT com>
	"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood

--
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/

- Raw text -