Unidentified subject!
jan@sonycom.com, jk@espy.org
Subject: Re: My trials upgrading to hamm/Bad bash 2.01-5 for bo
References: <[🔎] 87d8gk1iu8.fsf@cush.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Martin <martind>
Date: 20 Feb 1998 22:49:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: Daniel Martin's message of "18 Feb 1998 20:31:11 -0500"
Message-ID: <874t1twrau.fsf@cush.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
Lines: 22
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.3 - "Vatican City"
(This message is being CCed to people whom I've pointed to my
bash_2.01-5 for bo in the past)
As I said in my earlier post on this thread, I had compiled some bash
2.01 binaries and made them available under
http://www.math.jhu.edu/~martind/bash/ - however, as I discovered when
I upgraded to hamm, using those .deb files will make the autoup script
not work. I now have at that location some information on fixing one's
system if one goes ahead and uses the autoup script anyway.
I also have re-done my bash 2.01 for bo .deb's so that they obey the
debian version numbering scheme; these new packages are linked off of
http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dtm12/bash/ - if you are using my bash 2.01
for bo .deb files, you are strongly encouraged to either switch to
these packages which have the correct version numbers, or to wait a
few days for a bash 2.01 to appear in bo-unstable.
jk@espy.org: I found recompiling bash 2.01 for bo a bit annoying; on
that page with the new packages is a link to a patchfile I created
against the hamm source tree. Unless you've already gone through the
process of reworking the debian/* files to build nicely under (and
for) bo, you might want to use my patch as a starting point.
--
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: