Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:43:46 -0800
From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <sthoenna@efn.org>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: status of bash-3.0-12 (was: Re: How do I make /bin/sh=sh)
Message-ID: <20051215084206.GA2856@efn.org>
References: <082220052040.28314.430A38260007178400006E9A22058861720A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <082220052040.28314.430A38260007178400006E9A22058861720A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

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/