Re: Bash upgrade,Netscape helpers...
Hi Brian K Servis; unless Mutt is confused,on Aug 25, you wrote :
>
> Regardless of the status of libc6, the change over to 1.3.x or 1.3 Rev
> x, the desire to keep changes to the stable tree to a minimum, or
> whatever, this needs to be upgraded NOW. I have had a few other apps
> crap out on this bash 2.0 bug and since the Debian system lives and
> dies by bash it needs to be fixed A.S.A.P. by the maintainer, and or
> the development team, not kind Jens who got sick of it enough to
> download the source.
>
> My $0.02(US)
>
> Brian
>
>
That was exactly my point when I started this thread. I'm glad to see
that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I mean, it is nice to
have a bleeding edge stuff, but something as crucial as bash should be
fixed for older systems as well...I've also heard an argument that even
the new one isn't as bug-free as we'd like but, hey, it is not like this
one is completely bug-free -- so no loss there...
I thank Jens for being so precise with his instructions and size info.
This might be the only way to go ...My question (I apologize if it is
naive or stupid): will a binary thus build be good enough for other
programs to install (dependancies and so forth..)? I mean I can compile
the program but I have yet to learn how to do a Debian package, so if I
leave the package as it is now and just copy the newly compiled binary
on top of the old one (/bin/bash) am I safe to think that the Debian
will still think it is a valid package?
Thanks for all that cared enough to reply..
DamirN
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: