bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Wendell Nicho » Thu, 18 Feb 1993 02:21:23



Upon upgrading to linux 99.1-4, I found that many functions which
require the shell dump core.  Is there a bash fix, for this release?
Thanks for any help... wendell nichols
 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Michael A. Iro » Fri, 19 Feb 1993 06:56:11


        There seems to be problems with IV-3.1 and the 'port' to
linux. The diffs mention a beta version which doesn't seem to exist
any more. Also the diffs were against a version of XFree86 that has a
linux.cf files which is replaced with a x386.cf in the X config
directory (took me long enough to realise I wasn't missing a file, but
that one from X had been renamed). Also there is a mention of linux in the
raw source, but it's won't compile as distributed, or with the patches
installed. All it does is spit out gobs of error messages and warnings.

        As such it would be a RNT if a complete release with all the
binaries be made, including all man pages, include files, binaries
such as idoc, ibuild, iclass, and both static libraries & jump (4.3)
as an 'official' release for XFree86-1.2 and libc.so.4.3.

--

                                  Mike Irons;



 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Michael A. Iro » Fri, 19 Feb 1993 07:13:30


        When making the XFree86-1.2 dis the person neglected to
compress the fonts. As such they take up a considerably larger amount
of disk space. Could the person (Orst) please compress the fonts, and
re-tar the 1-2 fonts files. Remember compressing the tars more won't help save space after X is installed, and that should be of prime concern.
--

                                  Mike Irons;


 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Ari P Laakkon » Fri, 19 Feb 1993 22:49:01


|> Upon upgrading to linux 99.1-4, I found that many functions which
|> require the shell dump core.  Is there a bash fix, for this release?
|> Thanks for any help... wendell nichols
I have the same problem (I think)... e.g. make dumps core when it attempts to
do an "echo" command, when I run the kernel I have compiled and use bash as the
shell. On the other hand, if I boot with a version of the kernel that is
available as a bootdisk (I think .99p4) then this fault does not occur. I also
upgraded my compiler to gcc233 when I changed the kernel, so maybe the
upgrade didn't go that well although everything else seems to compile just
fine. I like to be able to compile the kernel, if only to change the
keyboard definitions.. Anyone any ideas?

Ari

 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by M. Sagg » Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:15:06



Quote:>    When making the XFree86-1.2 dis the person neglected to
>compress the fonts. As such they take up a considerably larger amount
>of disk space. Could the person (Orst) please compress the fonts, and
>re-tar the 1-2 fonts files. Remember compressing the tars more won't
>help save space after X is installed, and that should be of prime concern.
>--

No need. Just do 'compress *.pcf; mkfontdir' in the font directories.
What I really miss is that the server won't accept gzipped fonts.
Orest said that was discussed and was decided against.

Regards,

/Muhammad M. Saggaf                 | Stop the genocide

 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Michael O'Reil » Sat, 20 Feb 1993 09:00:28



:       When making the XFree86-1.2 dis the person neglected to
: compress the fonts. As such they take up a considerably larger amount
: of disk space. Could the person (Orst) please compress the fonts, and
: re-tar the 1-2 fonts files. Remember compressing the tars more won't
: help save space after X is installed, and that should be of prime
: concern.  

PLEASE get in the habit of reading all the documentation. It is there
for you benifit, (usually so you don't post to the net asking faq's!!! :)

Just go into the font dirs and do compress *.pcf

The reason the fonts are expanded un-compressed, is that gzip is much
better at compressing un-compressed fonts than compressed ones.

The README files clearly details that you need to compress the fonts
again with 'compress' before starting.

:                                   Mike Irons;
Michael

 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by M. Sagg » Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:42:01




>:   When making the XFree86-1.2 dis the person neglected to
>: compress the fonts. As such they take up a considerably larger amount

[...]

Quote:

>PLEASE get in the habit of reading all the documentation. It is there
>for you benifit, (usually so you don't post to the net asking faq's!!! :)
>better at compressing un-compressed fonts than compressed ones.
[...]

>The README files clearly details that you need to compress the fonts
>again with 'compress' before starting.

There there Michael. Actually, if memory serves me correctly, the
original README file didn't contian any refrence to the fonts. I sent
mail to Orest suggesting a note be added in this respect (also the
instructions about invoking the server if you have/don't have inet
were a bit inaccurate so I suggested a correction). So you see, those
who got the archive very early couldn't have seen the 'clear details'
that you mentioned.

A bit of tolerance, please.

P.S. XFree86 1.2 is wonderfull, thanks to Orest and the rest of the
     people who worked on it. Tremendous job.

Cheers,

/Muhammad M. Saggaf                 | Stop the genocide

 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Eric Youngda » Sun, 21 Feb 1993 02:21:07



>P.S. XFree86 1.2 is wonderfull, thanks to Orest and the rest of the
>     people who worked on it. Tremendous job.

        A big thanks should also go to Dirk Hohndel who compiled the libraries,
built the applications, and assembled the distributions this time around.

-Eric

--

 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Michael A. Iro » Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:34:46


        The README that sits on tsx-11.mit.edu says they are allready
compressed. As this is the README that people will be installing from
the package is wrong. Linux has enough problems with library
compatability, etc. without having to get to the install README by
installing the package. Not only that but with a README that comes
with the tar files who's going to hunt for another? I already followed
the instructions, why would I go hunting for what _should_ be the same
README?

        A package with multipule, and conflicting README/install instructions
  is poor programming, and unfortunatly very typical of linux (as a
whole system) these days.

--

                                  Mike Irons;


 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Peter MacDona » Mon, 22 Feb 1993 16:42:14



...

Quote:>    A package with multipule, and conflicting README/install instructions
>  is poor programming, and unfortunatly very typical of linux (as a
>whole system) these days.

Your right.  If I were you, I would drop out of this newsgroup immediately,
as your invaluable contributions like the above are vitally needed elsewhere.
 
 
 

bash (1.12?) broke with 99.4

Post by Matt Wel » Tue, 23 Feb 1993 08:15:02



>    The README that sits on tsx-11.mit.edu says they are allready
>compressed. As this is the README that people will be installing from
>the package is wrong. Linux has enough problems with library
>compatability, etc. without having to get to the install README by
>installing the package.
[...]
>    A package with multipule, and conflicting README/install instructions
>  is poor programming, and unfortunatly very typical of linux (as a
>whole system) these days.

I think you're forgetting the position of Linux and free software in general
(which includes Xfre86 1.2).

Linux is a hacker's operating system. If you're not a hacker, and are unable
to figure out that the fonts need to be compressed (either by reading ALL
of the available documentation, as you didn't do--- or by reading this
newsgroup or figuring it out yourself) then prehaps you're not ready for
Linux.

No one has given you any guarantee that any of the software used under
Linux will work as is. In fact, the GPL directly states that there is no
such guarantee.

The Linux Doc Project is trying to make up for this situation. However,
at present, you're going to actually have to figure some things out
for yourself instead of expecting everyone to spell it out for you.

mdw

--

  "What are you doing, Dave?"