>
> 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
" is set by executing the following "script"
su
cd /bin
mv bash bash1
ln -s bash2 bash
exit
you could then switch back using the opposite symlink.
that would be system wide of course... per user would be more like
cd ~/bin
ln -s /bin/bash2 bash
cabbey at home dot net <*>
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
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
[ 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
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 mu
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 strict
> > 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.
>
> 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 pr
> 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:
m
n 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
> break som
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 }
>
> 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
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
> incompatibl
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 scri
[ 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 t
Why is bash2 not the default for rh 6.1
Is there plans to implement this at a further date
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
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]\$
Hi,
I have added the following lines in my .bashrc and now the command line gets
confused and produces garbage:
if [ "x$DISPLAY" != "x" ]; then
PS1='[\u@\h]\$ \033];`dirs`\007';
function cd(){
pushd $1;
PS1='[\u@\h]\$ \033];`mydirs`\007'
}
22 matches
Mail list logo
