Subject: Re: maintaining bash
From: Brian Dessent <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:27:48 -0700

David Dindorp wrote:

> Uhm.  No it's not..
> Bash 2.05b is so unstable under Cygwin that it classifies as a
> volatile chemical.  At least if you put it under a lot of pressure -
> a normal users everyday use it may cope fine with, which is probably
> how it's used by most people in here anyway.
> 
> To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash
> problem, or perhaps a "bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin
> because the maintainer haven't had the time" problem.  It's running
> quite stable under 1.5.10, it sucks with 1.5.12 and 1.5.13 and any
> of the latest snapshots..  (Haven't tried 1.5.11, but I will as soon
> as I get the time.)

I would say it's probably got to do more with changes in the cygwin DLL
than bash.  There's the PID reuse issue that has a workaround in the -17
package by Pierre's patch, and the // thing that Corinna mentioned. 
Other than that I'm not aware of any reported bugs that have been
attributed to bash and not the DLL.  I was basing my comment on what
others that know more about it than I have said in the past:
<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/msg01150.html>

Brian

--
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/