David O'Brien wrote:
I have to weigh all the screams of 'I want the newest Bash 4.0 *NOW*'
with testing. I didn't see the issue of $() as my .bashrc and scripts
are too old and just use ``.
I agree with you and appreciate your efforts. Maintaining a port like
this one with so many moving par
Hi!
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
> I have to weigh all the screams of 'I want the newest Bash 4.0 *NOW*'
> with testing. I didn't see the issue of $() as my .bashrc and scripts
> are too old and just use ``.
It looks like logcheck-1.2.54 (security/logcheck) also is inco
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 02:59:50AM -0700, GESBBB wrote:
> Until a fix has been put in place, I would suggest that a notice be
> placed in UPDATING that Bash-4 is not completely functional and its use
> is not recommended. Better yet, maybe the port should just be marked
> "BROKEN", since it clearly
> From: bf bf20...@yahoo.com
[snip]
> The problem is that the port's parser is
> broken, owing in part to incompatibilities between the
> system yacc currently used to build the parser and GNU
> bison, which is used by the people who write bash. This
> is true of both shells/bash and shells/b
> From: bf
> > > {Problem with Bash-4 and $(command) ...}:
> > [...]
> > > I found the same problem, and have reverted to
> > > bash3.2 until it's sorted out.
> >
> > See if the following helps.
> >
> > http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/COMPAT
> >
> > Especially:
> >
> > 38. Since bash-4.0
