Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 2 Jan 1997 02:10:28 -0800
From:      obrien@dragon.nuxi.com (David O'Brien)
To:        asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Cc:        deobrien@ucdavis.edu, ache@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit:  ports/shells/bash/pkg PLIST ports/shells/bash Makefile ports/shells/bash/files md5 ports/shells/bash/patches patch-aa patch-ab patch-ac patch-ad patch-ae
Message-ID:  <Mutt.19970102021028.obrien@dragon.nuxi.com>
In-Reply-To: <199701020620.WAA27536@baloon.mimi.com>; from Satoshi Asami on Jan 1, 1997 22:20:08 -0800
References:  <Mutt.19970101144331.obrien@dragon.nuxi.com> <199701020620.WAA27536@baloon.mimi.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Satoshi Asami writes:
>  * After trying Bash 2.0, I think maybe we should leave the 1.14 port around
>  * for awhile too.  They have changed several vars such as OSTYPE and
> 
> I'll have to agree with this too.  It is now much pickier with the
> syntax (e.g., "function foo () { bar }" is not allowed anymore, and it
> prints out a totally uninformative error message about missing if or
> something), it is going to be a rough ride for awhile.
> 
> I'll do the repository copy and roll back this one to the previous
> version.

Can we keep Bash 2.0 around for those that don't have as much legacy
stuff as we do?  Kinda like the fvwm ports, we could also have "bash2".
For people starting new with Bash, no reason to hold them back because of
us guys.

-- 
-- David	(deobrien@ucdavis.edu)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970102021028.obrien>