>
> Maybe a env var to make it totally backwards even w/o warning?
> $I_WANT_A_BROKEN_BASH perhaps, because why should ps have all the fun? :)
Wotta thought. I like it.
A bash front end (stored as /bin/bash) that execs the good bash or the old
stuffed up one.
>
--
Cheers
John Summerfiel
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: bash2
> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 07:08:18 +0800
> From: John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> >
> > perhaps a simple bash2 script to update bash1 scripts?
>
> I suspect it's not so simple. While I onl
>
> perhaps a simple bash2 script to update bash1 scripts?
I suspect it's not so simple. While I only found two problems here, I'm
sure there are more. An option to bash (maybe --syntax to do a syntax
check, no more) would have been a good thing.
It would have been nice to be able to check e
At 17:09 2/1/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] dug out of the snow and wrote:
>Maybe a env var to make it totally backwards even w/o warning?
>$I_WANT_A_BROKEN_BASH perhaps, because why should ps have all the fun? :)
you can have the opposite easily... $I_WANT_NEW_BASH
said "envvar" is set by executin
On Tue Feb 01 2000 at 17:09, James Manning wrote:
> > > Let the old #!/bin/bash scripts break -- they need to be fixed.
> > >
> > > The sooner "echo $BASH_VERSION" returns 2.x by default, the better...
> >
> > perhaps a simple bash2 script to update bash1 scripts?
>
> Perhaps an RH-specific bash
On Wed Feb 02 2000 at 08:00, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Tony Nugent wrote:
>
> > On Mon Jan 31 2000 at 11:43, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > > My understanding was that bash2 was fully backwards compatable. I
> > > > could however be mildly/wildly mistaken
> > >
> > > It is mostly but not 100%. The bre
[ Tuesday, February 1, 2000 ] Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Tony Nugent wrote:
> > Let the old #!/bin/bash scripts break -- they need to be fixed.
> >
> > The sooner "echo $BASH_VERSION" returns 2.x by default, the better...
>
> perhaps a simple bash2 script to update bash1 scripts?
Perhaps an RH-spe
Tony Nugent wrote:
> On Mon Jan 31 2000 at 11:43, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > My understanding was that bash2 was fully backwards compatable. I
> > > could however be mildly/wildly mistaken
> >
> > It is mostly but not 100%. The breakages are actually not so much a
> > bash fault either. bash2 is mo
On Mon Jan 31 2000 at 11:43, Alan Cox wrote:
> > My understanding was that bash2 was fully backwards compatable. I
> > could however be mildly/wildly mistaken
>
> It is mostly but not 100%. The breakages are actually not so much a
> bash fault either. bash2 is more strictly compliant and this b
> > bash2 was MOT one of RHS's better ideas.
> >
>
> MOT?
NOT!
AH! (the M and N are too similar in my email client's font)
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s u
>
> My understanding was that bash2 was fully backwards compatable.
> I could however be mildly/wildly mistaken
It lacks some bash-1 bugs. When I first installed bash-2 (properly, as an
upgrade on RHL 5.0), autofs wouldn't start (missing semicolon) and there
was a problem in XFree.
--
Cheer
> My understanding was that bash2 was fully backwards compatable.
> I could however be mildly/wildly mistaken
It is mostly but not 100%. The breakages are actually not so much a bash
fault either. bash2 is more strictly compliant and this bites some scripts
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscri
On Sun Jan 30 2000 at 14:32, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> --Bi+HF1AHjw0mn3zx
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh please... there's absolutely no need for the quoted-UNprintable...
> [ Monday, January 31 2000 ] had Kevin Waterson saying:
>
> > W
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> Yes. 7.0, probably.
Perhaps I do up a little script to convert bash1 to bash2
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
John Summerfield wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> >
> > > Why is bash2 not the default for rh 6.1
> >
> > Compatibility issues.
> > bash 2.x is somewhat more strict about POSIX compliance, for example
> >
> > { ls }
> >
> > used to work in 1.x, but 2.x forces strict POSIX,
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
>
> > Why is bash2 not the default for rh 6.1
>
> Compatibility issues.
> bash 2.x is somewhat more strict about POSIX compliance, for example
>
> { ls }
>
> used to work in 1.x, but 2.x forces strict POSIX, so it has to be
>
> { ls; }
>
> Since a
Jeremy Katz wrote:
> [ Monday, January 31 2000 ] had Kevin Waterson saying:
>
> > Why is bash2 not the default for rh 6.1
> > Is there plans to implement this at a further date
>
> Past questions regarding this have come to the conclusion that bash2 is
> incompatible in several ways with bash 1.1
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Why is bash2 not the default for rh 6.1
Compatibility issues.
bash 2.x is somewhat more strict about POSIX compliance, for example
{ ls }
used to work in 1.x, but 2.x forces strict POSIX, so it has to be
{ ls; }
Since a lot of older shell scripts
[ Monday, January 31 2000 ] had Kevin Waterson saying:
> Why is bash2 not the default for rh 6.1
> Is there plans to implement this at a further date
Past questions regarding this have come to the conclusion that bash2 is
incompatible in several ways with bash 1.14, and that it would tend to
bre
On 29 Dec 1999 09:58:36 -0500, Nikolaos Margaritis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have added the following lines in my .bashrc and now the command line gets
>confused and produces garbage:
Of course it does, you have a syntax error.
>if [ "x$DISPLAY" != "x" ]; then
>PS1='[\u@\h]\$
20 matches
Mail list logo
