ANNOUNCE: release 3 of the DJGPP port of GNU Bash 2.04 uploaded.
Andris Pavenis
DJGPP specific changes relative to release 2.
=============================================
- Fixed a bug which caused shell function which both
- invokes an external program and assign its output
to variable,
- uses return builtin
not to work properly (or crash). Read more:
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp/2006/08/08/16:37:27
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers/2009/09/09/03:35:08
- Reverted increase of stack size and DOS transfer buffer to the 512K and 16K
respectively. The stacksize problem was with GCC own executables (for example cc1.exe).
Things are not so simple also with transfer buffer size. The real problem was that
bootstrapping GCC requires special adjusting due to running out of DOS memory space.
I cannot say which exact value we need, so I put back the default one.
The binaries were compiled from source archive (bsh204sr3.zip) on Windows Vista
Business SP2 using gcc-4.4.1, binutils-2.19, djdev203.
No other changes have been done on sources.
This release of the port consists of two packages produced using stock djdev203
and can be downloaded from ftp.delorie.com and mirrors as (timestamp 2009-09-20):
Bash 2.04 binary, info and man format documentation:
ftp://ftp.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/current/v2gnu/bsh204br3.zip
Bash 2.04 source:
ftp://ftp.delorie.com/pub/djgpp/current/v2gnu/bsh204sr3.zip
Send suggestions and bug reports concerning the DJGPP port
to comp.os.msdos.djgpp or dj...@delorie.com.
Enjoy.
Andris Pavenis <andris....@iki.fi>
Rugxulo
On Sep 20, 9:52 pm, Andris Pavenis <andris.pave...@iki.fi> wrote:
> This is release 3 of the port of GNU Bash 2.04 for DJGPP.
>
> DJGPP specific changes relative to release 2.
> =============================================
>
> - Fixed a bug which caused shell function which both
> - invokes an external program and assign its output
> to variable,
> - uses return builtin
> not to work properly (or crash). Read more:
>
> http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp/2006/08...
> http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers...
>
> Send suggestions and bug reports concerning the DJGPP port
> to comp.os.msdos.djgpp or dj...@delorie.com.
Big thanks on this as I know it was a headache in some ways. :-)
P.S. I know your site has a patched 2.05b for /beta/, will that be
uploaded next or is there something else blocking it?
Andris Pavenis
Andris
Eli Zaretskii
> From: Andris Pavenis <andris....@iki.fi>
>
> This is release 3 of the port of GNU Bash 2.04 for DJGPP.
>
> DJGPP specific changes relative to release 2.
> =============================================
>
> - Fixed a bug which caused shell function which both
> - invokes an external program and assign its output
> to variable,
> - uses return builtin
> not to work properly (or crash). Read more:
Thank you!
Andris Pavenis
It looks that it is not so with port of bash-2.0.5b for v2.04pre. Configuration
fails if configured using 2.0.5b. The last fix neither introduces neither fixes
this problem. Configuring using bash-2.0.4 (the last update) works OK. Of course
it could be that the problem appears only under Windows Vista.
Andris
Rugxulo
Surprisingly enough, I don't think that's correct. It may be something
specific to your setup. Yes, I see now that even your Bash 2.05b port
is using the older stub ("2.02"), so you didn't use DJGPP 2.04.
However, when the patch was originally announced on djgpp-workers, I
tried downloading your bin + src .ZIPs from your site, but it was
either really really slow or hung or whatever, so I just downloaded
the tiny patch and recompiled it myself. That was on my Vista Home
Premium SP2 laptop here, and I used DJGPP 2.04 and old Bash 2.05b to
configure it. I didn't encounter any problems, and it seems to work
fine (e.g. ZILE's configure from Autoconf 2.64). I ran djconfig.sh in
the djbuild/ dir. Perhaps you tried running configure directly?? (I
dunno, but it must be something silly if even I can build it, heh.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ Vista ] - Mon 09/21/2009 >v bash.exe
-rwxr-xr-x 1 Rugxulo dos 664064 Sep 9 22:19 bash.exe
[ Vista ] - Mon 09/21/2009 >bash gordon.sh
Calling out to the world...
MS-DOS
Preparing to meet our maker!
[ Vista ] - Mon 09/21/2009 >ver
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
[ Vista ] - Mon 09/21/2009 >scrndump
-----------------------------------------------------------------
make.exe[2]: Nothing to be done for `all-am'.
make.exe[2]: Leaving directory `c:/Armslurp/temp/moo/zile-2.3.12'
make.exe[1]: Leaving directory `c:/Armslurp/temp/moo/zile-2.3.12'
Ultimate Packer for eXecutables
Copyright (C) 1996 - 2008
UPX 3.03w Markus Oberhumer, Laszlo Molnar & John Reiser Apr
27th 2008
File size Ratio Format Name
-------------------- ------ ----------- -----------
320000 -> 150716 47.10% djgpp2/coff zile.exe
Packed 1 file.
[ Vista/DJGPP ] - Mon 09/21/2009 >grep return.\$ac_retval configure
return $ac_retval
return $ac_retval
return $ac_retval
return $ac_retval
return $ac_retval
[ Vista/DJGPP ] - Mon 09/21/2009 >where /t bash
645632 9/9/2009 2:23:44 PM c:\Armslurp\djgpp\bin\bash.exe
[ Vista/DJGPP ] - Mon 09/21/2009 >scrndump
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rugxulo
On Sep 21, 3:36 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... the tiny patch and recompiled it myself. That was on my Vista Home
> Premium SP2 laptop here, and I used DJGPP 2.04 and old Bash 2.05b to
> configure it. I didn't encounter any problems, and it seems to work
> fine (e.g. ZILE's configure from Autoconf 2.64). I ran djconfig.sh in
> the djbuild/ dir. Perhaps you tried running configure directly?? (I
> dunno, but it must be something silly if even I can build it, heh.)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> [ Vista/DJGPP ] - Mon 09/21/2009 >where /t bash
> 645632 9/9/2009 2:23:44 PM c:\Armslurp\djgpp\bin\bash.exe
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my 2.04 build if you want to use / test it or whatever.
http://rapidshare.com/files/283182385/bash205br3-exe-djgpp204.zip.html
MD5: 8D7B41181A1B5DEAED6EE67AB547EBF5
Rugxulo
On Sep 21, 3:46 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here's my 2.04 build if you want to use / test it or whatever.
>
> http://rapidshare.com/files/283182385/bash205br3-exe-djgpp204.zip.html
> MD5: 8D7B41181A1B5DEAED6EE67AB547EBF5
Does this mean nobody wants/needs a 2.04 binary? So Andris' 2.03pl2
compile is good enough? Honestly, I just want a bugfixed version of
2.05b put on the FTP server so nobody encounters the shell function
bug. Should I package it and FTP upload it myself to /incoming, DJ? (I
just don't want anybody overlooking this.)
Rugxulo
On Sep 27, 2:48 pm, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does this mean nobody wants/needs a 2.04 binary? So Andris' 2.03pl2
> compile is good enough? Honestly, I just want a bugfixed version of
> 2.05b put on the FTP server so nobody encounters the shell function
> bug. Should I package it and FTP upload it myself to /incoming, DJ? (I
> just don't want anybody overlooking this.)
Well 2.04r3 and 2.05br3 are both there now (and on a mirror too). So I
guess it's moot. Thanks again to Andris and DJ. ;-)
Andris Pavenis
It seemed to work OK under WinXP Pro SP3.
Not so nice under Windows Vista Business SP2. Under the latest
config.status invoked from configure crashes NTVDM or fails
(for example while configuring bash-2.0.5b itself).
When run directly config.status succeeds. I do not know what
causes this problem.
Andris
Allan
"Andris Pavenis" <andris....@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:4AC1B8F1...@iki.fi...
> 09/29/2009 01:54 AM, Rugxulo kirjoitti:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2:48 pm, Rugxulo<rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Does this mean nobody wants/needs a 2.04 binary? So Andris' 2.03pl2
>>> compile is good enough? Honestly, I just want a bugfixed version of
>>> 2.05b put on the FTP server so nobody encounters the shell function
>>> bug. Should I package it and FTP upload it myself to /incoming, DJ? (I
>>> just don't want anybody overlooking this.)
>>>
>> Well 2.04r3 and 2.05br3 are both there now (and on a mirror too). So I
>> guess it's moot. Thanks again to Andris and DJ. ;-)
>>
> Yes it is there. I just have not posted announcement.
In a sense you just did "announce" the upload here. Thanks for all the work,
I have installed the binary package. Only isn't the file name supposed to be
nine characters in length? I renamed it without the "r" in the name
(`bsh205bb3.zip').