Mail Archives: djgpp/2010/04/01/17:45:14
Hi,
On Apr 1, 10:25=A0am, Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pave DOT DOT DOT AT iki DOT fi> wrote:
> 31.03.2010 19:11, Robert Riebisch kirjoitti:
>
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> Do you have the latest v2.04 ports of Bash, Sed, and related
> >> utilities? =A0If not, please upgrade and try again.
>
> > Not always a good idea. Bash.exe from 'beta/v2gnu/bsh205bbr3.zip'
> > crashes silently very often for me, where Bash.exe from
> > 'current/v2gnu/bsh204br3.zip' works fine for me.
Really? Everything I've tried works fine in 2.05bbr3. If you have
specific examples of things that don't work, please tell us!
> It is not very surprising unfortunately.
>
> I also have noticed that old port of bash-2.0.4 is more stable rather
> than one of bash-2.0.5b even after all fixes done for DJGPP.
Not in my experience.
> Perhaps it was not so noticeable several years ago as configure
> and other scripts used them most likely smaller subset of bash
> features rather than now. As result more bugs of DJGPP ports are
> exposed now.
The Autoconf people explicitly target only POSIX, if at all possible.
Honestly, it's much smaller scripts since 2.64 but still way too slow
to build (e.g. ZILE, ugh, configure takes forever). Bash just happens
to be the most common shell on GNU systems. (And yes, 2.05b is old old
old by their standards.)
> For example I failed to build gcc-4.4.3 for DJGPP (libtool related
> failure when building libstdc++-v3) and also similar failure for
> binutils-2.20.
What libtool error exactly? I assume it's not the dumb "not a valid
archive" CRLF vs. LF quirk (which is fixed in r3). I know that Libtool
still really needs someone to run tests with DJGPP, though, hence it
may have bugs. It's just too unwieldy for me. :-(
> I do not have time now to try to fix these problems in the current ports
> of bash. The same also an attempt to port newer versions of bash.
Well, we sure can't expect Chet Ramey to care about DJGPP, can
we? :-/
> Sometimes long ago I tried to do that with bash-3.0, but never reached
> even that level of stability that we have with 2.0.5b.
>
> I'm afraid that attempts to port new versions of many GNU software
> packages for DJGPP may soon come to end unless we have better port of BAS=
H
> or some other compatible enough shell.
I still say that DASH (Debian Ash) is much easier to build, even
though it currently doesn't work. It should, in theory, be much easier
to get that working than trying to keep up with Bash (which is
humongous). DASH claims to be POSIX compliant, so it should work with
Autoconf.
- Raw text -