#539 closed defect (fixed)
7 official Bash-2.05b patches
| Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | highest | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Book | Version: | CVS |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
Currently there exists 7 bash-2.05b patches on GNU's FTP server. Add them to the book but not a mega patch as is done currently.
Add some descriptions of what the patches are meant for.
Change History (5)
comment:1 by , 22 years ago
comment:2 by , 21 years ago
| Status: | new → assigned |
|---|
comment:3 by , 21 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → new |
I'll take care of this one - make a new bash-2.05b-2.patch file that includes all 7 patches from ftp.gnu.org for bash 2.05b
comment:4 by , 21 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
bash-2.05b-2.patch uploaded to downloads, book updated for new patch.
Issue closed.
comment:5 by , 21 years ago
Ummm, Jeremy, the patch you uploaded does not have the header information as required by the standards set out in the new patches project. Probably no point in redoing it but could we please follow the guidelines for making and submitting future patches? Thanks.
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
Greg Schafer's recommendation: 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 use. 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.