X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Eric Blake <ebb9 AT byu DOT net>
Subject:  Re: bash quoting bug
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:32:51 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 40
Message-ID:  <loom.20061107T192242-390@post.gmane.org>
References:  <eiqhho$m22$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

Joe Buehler <jbuehler <at> spirentcom.com> writes:

> 
> I see that there have been some bash problems recently.  I am
> reporting this in case it hasn't been handled in an upcoming
> release of bash:

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-11/msg00009.html

> 
> $ bash -c 'echo `echo "\\""`'

$ bash -c 'echo `echo "\\""`'
"
$ echo $BASH_VERSION
3.2.3(5)-release

<gripe mode>
QUIT BEING LAZY, and test the experimental release before asking your 
question.  If more people would give positive feedback stating things 
like "hey - bash-3.1-9 still has a bug that I verified was fixed in bash-3.2.3-
5, and I haven't seen any regressions when using the experimental version", 
rather than asking rhetorical questions like "I know of this bug in 3.1, can 
someone else be bothered to check if it is fixed in 3.2?", I would be more 
inclined to promote bash-3.2.3-5 to current.
</gripe>

As it is, this week has already turned up two reports of unrelated issues that 
both fall in this category - something unrelated to cygwin that is broken in 
upstream 3.1 but fixed in upstream 3.2 - and zero reports of something broken 
in 3.2.3-5, so I'm already quite close to calling 3.2.3-5 good enough to 
promote.  The only reason I express so much reluctance is that bash is so 
fundamental to a large chunk of cygwin operation, and I was recently burned by 
the backlash of my \r handling changes being promoted to current without enough 
prior testing while it was in the experimental phase.

-- 
Eric Blake
volunteer cygwin bash maintainer



--
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/