X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D17523840C27 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tlinx.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cygwin AT tlinx DOT org Message-ID: <60424EFA.2070500@tlinx.org> Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 07:32:10 -0800 From: L A Walsh User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jack S Subject: Re: Would it be possible to update the bash package? References: <603C839E DOT 2080509 AT tlinx DOT org> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "Cygwin" On 2021/03/03 16:40, Jack S wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 10:03 PM L A Walsh wrote: > > What features are you looking for in 5.0 that you need it? > > > Bug fixes and security updates. Also I want to have version parity with > my servers. ---- I don't recall any security vulnerabilities reported in 4.3/4.4 that have been fixed, and there have been just as many bugs introduced in 5.0 as fixed, as features and behaviors changed. Really I don't see a compelling reason there should be any hurry to update. In my own testing, I've been unable to build a version that doesn't crash/dump core on linux and don't really think the 5.x series has had a thorough vetting such that it would be regarded as being as stable as 4.3/4.4. The 5.x series is still new and I'm thinking if 5.x is offered, it should stay on the beta channel for a few more major releases. I certainly don't see 5.0 being more Posix compatible than the 4.x series or more compatible with existing shells. I'm not sure cygwin should strive to be on the bleeding edge as it is designed to be a Posix compatible solution -- not necessarily something with all the latest bleeding edge versions. It's not up to me what version ships with cygwin, but if I wanted a newer version I'd build it myself and I'd hope the bash maintainer for cygwin would upgrade to 5.x when 5.x is more mature, though I certainly see no problem and would support 5.x being offered as in the beta/test channel for a few releases. That seems like a perfect fit for a stable vs. new structure. But that's just my opinion at the time... -l -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple