This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: updated bash to latest 3.1.17(8)-release; startup has errors now
- From: mwoehlke <mwoehlke at tibco dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:05:01 -0500
- Subject: Re: updated bash to latest 3.1.17(8)-release; startup has errors now
- Original-to: To steal from Dave Korn, Thread TITTTLd!
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20061002224808.GC2949@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 05:43:39PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
Any time you upgrade a package and something that was working, stops
working... *RTFRNBG*! In Cygwin's case, this means the ANNOUNCEMENT that
went to cygwin-announce. And the SECOND thing you should do is STFLA for
similar problems. In this case, looking for 'bash' in the last week of
activity would have answered your question, or at least pointed you at a
thread where you could contribute without looking like an idiot who
doesn't know how to RTFRA or STFLA.
(1: Read The (YKWGH) Release Notes Before Griping, also RTFRNBC
(RTFRNBComplaining), RTFRN, and for Cygwin, RTFRA where A = ANNOUNCEMENT)
(2: You Know What Goes Here)
(3: Search The (YKWGH) List Archives)
I came very close to sending a similar observation as a response to that
Yup, and I came close to not sending it. But... I'm wasting my breath in
the vain hope that someone might actually read it BEFORE griping.
Although I suppose that's a bit silly, too, because the people that do,
read the announcement and either fixed the problem without ever
bothering the list, or just chimed in on one of the ongoing threads. :-)
That being the case, it wasn't so much yelling at the OP... although I
have to admit I don't have all that much sympathy for people that fail
both to follow simple directions AND use common sense before posting. Sigh.
Oh, and in case you didn't notice, I'm also shamelessly plugging RTFRN
and STFLA. ;-)
But, according to Shirley, that would surely have sounded surly, so I didn't,
although I sorely wanted to.
Ooh, the pain... ;-)
If this message is intercepted, the sender will disavow all knowledge of