3 new bug patches for bash2.05b
gschafer at zip.com.au
Tue Jun 3 16:14:07 PDT 2003
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 01:57:31PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On June 2, 2003 01:40 pm, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > Shouldn't the patches be kept seperate instead of having a mega patch?
> The current patch is a conglomeration already of the first 4(?) patches. Just
> to keep it easy for now I'd make it a mega one, later we can fix that.
> This does raise the question: currently with our seperate patches, they're
> there so people could decide not to apply a certain patch. But in case of the
> bash patches, wouldn't we want everybody to apply them anyways? One single
> patch would make that easier, though not necessarily the right thing.
Everyone (except for Gerard) seems to be missing the point that the bash
patches are in a different class. These patches were released by the
maintainer to fix critical bugs that otherwise render the pkg too buggy to
Contrast this with typical other patches that LFS uses, were Joe Random
LFS'er made a patch and who knows WTF it does and it makes sense to separate
out the pataches for clarity sake.
There is a big difference with the bash patches. Anyone can go to gnu.org
and check the details.
LFS should appply a convenient mega patch (as an exception) in the case of
current bash IMHO.
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