Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: maintaining bash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:19:06 +0200 Message-ID: <79F81D5F4790D344B05F489CE2AC8AB717CECB@dubexdc03.dubex.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "David Dindorp" To: Cc: X-IsSubscribed: yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id j38AJdqo004449 Brian Dessent wrote: > Furthermore, threads in the past have > expressed the fact that 2.05b has been very stable and both Ronald and > others have agreed that any major changes in bash would have to be > done very carefully so as not to cause instability. Uhm. No it's not.. Bash 2.05b is so unstable under Cygwin that it classifies as a volatile chemical. At least if you put it under a lot of pressure - a normal users everyday use it may cope fine with, which is probably how it's used by most people in here anyway. To be fair, this is probably more a Cygwin DLL problem than a bash problem, or perhaps a "bash hasn't kept up with changes in Cygwin because the maintainer haven't had the time" problem. It's running quite stable under 1.5.10, it sucks with 1.5.12 and 1.5.13 and any of the latest snapshots.. (Haven't tried 1.5.11, but I will as soon as I get the time.) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/