Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:22:10 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules ports/shells Makefile ports/shells/bash3 Makefile distinfo pkg-deinstall pkg-descr pkg-install pkg-plist ports/shells/bash3/files patch-ac patch-af patch-bashline.c patch-builtins_shopt.def patch-config-bot.h ... Message-ID: <AFE9187C-EB88-11D8-887A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4119F61F.6080502@portaone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Hmmm, why do we have those "bash", "bash2" and "bash3"? There may have > been some historical reasons for bash/bash2 separation, but I wonder if > they are still valid for the bash2 vs bash3 case. I guess bash 3.0 (like most .0 releases) has still some bugs to be ironed out, see for example: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2004-August/043003.html>; <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2004-August/043006.html>; Therefore it seems wise to keep bash2 to run scripts until bash3 is mature. OTOH people might want to use the new bash3 features: <http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/bash/NEWS>; So having bash2 and bash3 is justified. Do you think the directories should have different names? -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AFE9187C-EB88-11D8-887A-00039312D914>