Time to upgrade to bash-2.05b?
gschafer at zip.com.au
Wed Jan 1 14:43:12 PST 2003
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 11:03:49PM +0100, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 07:44:32 +1100 Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip.com.au>
> > Hi
> > Everyone else on the planet has upgraded to bash-2.05b.
> I haven't. Why would I want to?
Heh, I was half joking. Was making a reference to all the other "distros"
out there rather than individuals.
LFS generally tries to be up-to-date (which is a feature I like) hence the
suggestion. LFS is good at testing out new stuff.
Imagine "Joe Linux User" out there who notes "Ooh, Redhat, Debian, Gentoo
and all these other distros are using bash-2.05b. Why hasn't LFS upgraded
like everyone else?"
> >Sure it was
> > pretty buggy when first released. The current patches make it pretty
> > damn stable.
> And 2.05a has always been stable for me without patches. Is there any good
> reason to go to 2.05b?
Not really. Bash is one of those programs where most people use only about
5% of its total functionality.
The NEWS file contains a stack of new features. Also, this portion of the
diff says a bit about the situation:-
-The raison d'etre for bash-2.05a is to make an intermediate release
-containing principally bug fixes (some very good work was done and
-contributed after bash-2.05 was released) available before I start to
-work on the major new features to be available in the next release
-(bash-2.06 or bash-3.0 or whatever I tag it). As such, there are
-only a few relatively minor new features.
+The raison d'etre for bash-2.05b is to make a second intermediate
+release containing the first of the new features to be available
+in bash-3.0 and get feedback on those features before proceeding.
+The major new feature is multibyte character support in both Bash
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev