bash 3.1.18 seems seriously broken

[Eric Blake]

Larry Breyer <lbreyer <at> ucsd.edu> writes:

> I am a bit confused by these numbering schemes.  When I look at the
> 'Select Packages' section of setup, my choices for bash are 3.1-6 or
> 3.1-8.  I assumed they were shorthand for 3.1.16 and 3.1.18.

Nope, they are shorthand for 3.1.17(6) and 3.1.17(8).  Everything after the - 
is the cygwin release number (ie. the number of times I have attempted to 
upload to cygwin.com).  Everything before the - is the upstream package 
number.  The bash maintainer chooses to number his release tarballs with just 
two components (3.0, 3.1), but then issues official patches as problems are 
found.  He has released 17 official patches so far, and makes sure that his 
official patches affect the version number output, but does not make a new 
tarball.  Hopefully, that explains why 'bash --version' shows 3.1.17(8), but 
setup.exe only shows 3.1-8.

> So, I have subscribed to cygwin and cygwin-announce. I am hopeful I
> will not be surprised again.
> 

Subscribing to cygwin may be overkill, unless you want to know ALL the sordid 
details of the cygwin community.  But we make it a point to have decent release 
announcements in cygwin-announce, which then get mirrored to cygwin.  In 
theory, someone subscribed to just cygwin-announce should be able to decide 
whether or not to upgrade and what to expect as a result of an upgrade.

-- 
Eric Blake



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/