X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10112160002.AA20943@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Refresh Proposal
To: acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au (Andrew Cottrell)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:02:11 -0600 (CST)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <005701c185c2$19bf94a0$0102a8c0@acceleron> from "Andrew Cottrell" at Dec 16, 2001 10:41:33 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> 2.04 builds out of the source using the 2.03 files. I still don't like using
> it on 2K or XP as it has limitations to do with the path. 

Path limitations?  Tell me more.  An easy fix someplace?  I remember that
2.03 had replacements for some of the library routines?

> The 2.05 needs a
> small change  to the 2.03 LIBC in order for it to build. (process.c If I
> recall correctly from last weekend).

More info?  (no process.c in the libc).

> > This one intimidated me (2.04 vs 2.05, package replacements for libc, etc)
> > vs a straight compile.  I'd need advice.

> I't a double edged sword. If you use Bash 2.04 then you will find issues
> under 2K & XP, but Bash 2.05 can't be built from the sources with LIBC
> 2.03!!! After I check out the LIBC 2.03 update I will see if it is feasible
> to use a modified Bash 2.05 sources with LIBC 2.03.

I'd love to get these resolved ... Tell me more.  I'll start to unpack the
bash sources on the build box.