This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: maintaining bash
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Hans Horn <hannes at 2horns dot com>, cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:28:46 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: maintaining bash
- References: <423AE723.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com> <4255B3C7.firstname.lastname@example.org><4255B8AC.2C88CDE6@dessent.net> <email@example.com><20050408022027.GB10856@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Hans Horn wrote:
> > If you are still willing then you've got the job.
> Alright, I'm on - despite a rough start!
Hans, if you plan to maintain a package, you really ought to subscribe to
the cygwin-apps list. Packaging discussions should take place there.
I'm sending my reply there as well, and setting Reply-To: appropriately.
If you don't want to actually receive cygwin-apps messages, but want to be
able to post, you can subscribe to cygwin-apps-allow instead (see
> > There is one potential problem in that we may need to adapt Pierre's
> > patch to prevent problems with pid reuse to 3.0 if it is released.
> How do I go about Pierre's pid patch?
You'll need to see exactly what it changes in the 2.05 sources, find and
modify the corresponding places in the 3.0 sources, and then (the hardest
part) test that the fix actually works.
> > The next step is to create a package and offer it on the cygwin-apps
> > mailing list.
> > Please look at the archives for examples of how this is done.
> I'm a total virgin at this. I'm afraid I need help, professional help!
WHAT?! Do you know how much those people CHARGE?! ;-)
> Right now I'm looking at http://cygwin.com/setup.html, as well as what
> ships with the binary and source distribution of the current cygwin
> bash. Looks like bash2.x install in /usr/bin while bash3.x installs in
> /usr/local/bin. Is that ok?
No, it isn't. Cygwin programs get installed in /usr/bin. If the upstream
package doesn't go there by default, you'll need to patch the sources in
such a way that the files do get installed there.
> As to Andrew Schulman's complaint about the "extra-space-after-the-prompt"
> bug (http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2005-04/msg00325.html, first
> reported at http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-bugs/2005/03/25/0002.html),
> I believe to have fixed the problem. How do I about getting this fix (if we
> conclude that it is indeed working) back into mainstream bash?
You generate a patch (using "diff -puN" against the original sources),
make sure that the patch contains only the fix for the above problem, and
then submit the patch to the upstream batch distribution using the means
no doubt documented on the bash homepage.
|\ _,,,---,,_ email@example.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT