Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/12/15/03:43:36
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/
- Raw text -