cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

[R. Bernstein]

I've been working on a modified version of bash 2.05b which has better
support for error reporting and debugging (it also has a timestamped
history). It also has a somewhat complete debugger modeled off of gdb
using the additional support. See http://bashdb.sourceforge.net for info.

I've noticed that the sources to bash 2.05b (say in
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash) don't compile for cygwin without some
modification. I'd like to get the cygwin patches that should be
applied to 2.05b (i.e. don't mess up other architectures) into the
rebash/bashdb package. 

Thoughts and suggestions?


--
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/

Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 09:53:37AM -0400, R. Bernstein wrote:
> I've been working on a modified version of bash 2.05b which has better
> support for error reporting and debugging (it also has a timestamped
> history). It also has a somewhat complete debugger modeled off of gdb
> using the additional support. See http://bashdb.sourceforge.net for info.
> 
> I've noticed that the sources to bash 2.05b (say in
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash) don't compile for cygwin without some
> modification. I'd like to get the cygwin patches that should be
> applied to 2.05b (i.e. don't mess up other architectures) into the
> rebash/bashdb package. 
> 
> Thoughts and suggestions?

Using the bash source package from the Cygwin distro might help.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
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/

Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

[R. Bernstein]

Corinna Vinschen writes:
 > Using the bash source package from the Cygwin distro might help.

The source does not contain patches or diffs. Are there patches stored
separately from source? What happens when a new release comes out?
(Debian patches are nicely bundled for each particular problem and can
be installed and uninstalled separately)

I can do a "diff -Naur" to get the diffs and try to sort out which
ones are specific to cygwin as opposed to general patches such as
those found in bash public patches, I was hoping however for maybe
some coordination here. 

--
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/

Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 04:50:20PM -0400, R. Bernstein wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>  > Using the bash source package from the Cygwin distro might help.
> 
> The source does not contain patches or diffs. Are there patches stored
> separately from source? What happens when a new release comes out?
> (Debian patches are nicely bundled for each particular problem and can
> be installed and uninstalled separately)
> 
> I can do a "diff -Naur" to get the diffs and try to sort out which
> ones are specific to cygwin as opposed to general patches such as
> those found in bash public patches, I was hoping however for maybe
> some coordination here. 

I have just ran that diff since I'm passing over bash maintainership
to Ronald Landheer-Cieslak.

The Cygwin version is vanilla bash plus patches 001 to 004 plus the
below patches:

diff -rNup bash-2.05b/bashline.c bash-2.05b-cygwin/bashline.c
--- bash-2.05b/bashline.c	2003-09-12 12:53:45.360218000 +0200
+++ bash-2.05b-cygwin/bashline.c	2002-11-06 18:45:23.000000000 +0100
@@ -1055,7 +1055,11 @@ attempt_shell_completion (text, start, e
 	     filenames and leave directories in the match list. */
 	  if (matches == (char **)NULL)
 	    rl_ignore_some_completions_function = bash_ignore_filenames;
+#if 0
 	  else if (matches[1] == 0 && CMD_IS_DIR(matches[0]))
+#else
+	  else if (matches[1] == 0 && absolute_pathname (matches[0]) == 0)
+#endif
 	    /* Turn off rl_filename_completion_desired so readline doesn't
 	       append a slash if there is a directory with the same name
 	       in the current directory, or other filename-specific things.
diff -rNup bash-2.05b/configure bash-2.05b-cygwin/configure
--- bash-2.05b/configure	2002-07-16 15:31:47.000000000 +0200
+++ bash-2.05b-cygwin/configure	2002-08-07 10:56:13.000000000 +0200
@@ -15346,7 +15346,7 @@ lynxos*)	LOCAL_CFLAGS=-DRECYCLES_PIDS ;;
 linux*)		LOCAL_LDFLAGS=-rdynamic ;;	 # allow dynamic loading
 *qnx*)		LOCAL_CFLAGS="-Dqnx -F -3s" LOCAL_LDFLAGS="-3s" LOCAL_LIBS="-lunix -lncurses" ;;
 powerux*)	LOCAL_LIBS="-lgen" ;;
-cygwin*)	LOCAL_LIBS="-luser32" ;;
+cygwin*)	LOCAL_CFLAGS="-DRECYCLES_PIDS" ;;
 opennt*|interix*) LOCAL_CFLAGS="-DNO_MAIN_ENV_ARG -DBROKEN_DIRENT_D_INO" ;;
 esac
 
diff -rNup bash-2.05b/configure.in bash-2.05b-cygwin/configure.in
--- bash-2.05b/configure.in	2002-07-16 15:31:25.000000000 +0200
+++ bash-2.05b-cygwin/configure.in	2002-08-07 10:56:13.000000000 +0200
@@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ lynxos*)	LOCAL_CFLAGS=-DRECYCLES_PIDS ;;
 linux*)		LOCAL_LDFLAGS=-rdynamic ;;	 # allow dynamic loading
 *qnx*)		LOCAL_CFLAGS="-Dqnx -F -3s" LOCAL_LDFLAGS="-3s" LOCAL_LIBS="-lunix -lncurses" ;;
 powerux*)	LOCAL_LIBS="-lgen" ;;
-cygwin*)	LOCAL_LIBS="-luser32" ;;
+cygwin*)	LOCAL_CFLAGS="-DRECYCLES_PIDS" ;;
 opennt*|interix*) LOCAL_CFLAGS="-DNO_MAIN_ENV_ARG -DBROKEN_DIRENT_D_INO" ;;
 esac
 
diff -rNup bash-2.05b/findcmd.c bash-2.05b-cygwin/findcmd.c
--- bash-2.05b/findcmd.c	2002-03-19 16:19:05.000000000 +0100
+++ bash-2.05b-cygwin/findcmd.c	2003-03-13 10:32:08.000000000 +0100
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ file_status (name)
   if (S_ISDIR (finfo.st_mode))
     return (FS_EXISTS|FS_DIRECTORY);
 
-#if defined (AFS)
+#if defined (AFS) || defined (__CYGWIN__)
   /* We have to use access(2) to determine access because AFS does not
      support Unix file system semantics.  This may produce wrong
      answers for non-AFS files when ruid != euid.  I hate AFS. */
diff -rNup bash-2.05b/general.c bash-2.05b-cygwin/general.c
--- bash-2.05b/general.c	2002-06-12 22:57:55.000000000 +0200
+++ bash-2.05b-cygwin/general.c	2002-11-22 20:30:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -470,7 +470,16 @@ make_absolute (string, dot_path)
   char *result;
 
   if (dot_path == 0 || ABSPATH(string))
+#ifdef __CYGWIN__
+    {
+      char pathbuf[PATH_MAX + 1];
+
+      cygwin_conv_to_full_posix_path (string, pathbuf);
+      result = savestring (pathbuf);
+    }
+#else
     result = savestring (string);
+#endif
   else
     result = sh_makepath (dot_path, string, 0);
 
diff -rNup bash-2.05b/test.c bash-2.05b-cygwin/test.c
--- bash-2.05b/test.c	2002-02-28 16:54:47.000000000 +0100
+++ bash-2.05b-cygwin/test.c	2003-03-13 10:32:08.000000000 +0100
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int test_error_return;
 /* We have to use access(2) for machines running AFS, because it's
    not a Unix file system.  This may produce incorrect answers for
    non-AFS files.  I hate AFS. */
-#if defined (AFS)
+#if defined (AFS) || defined (__CYGWIN__)
 #  define EACCESS(path, mode)	access(path, mode)
 #else
 #  define EACCESS(path, mode)	test_eaccess(path, mode)

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
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/

Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

[R. Bernstein]

Corinna Vinschen writes:
 > I have just ran that diff since I'm passing over bash maintainership
 > to Ronald Landheer-Cieslak.

Actually, I ran it myself yesterday and applied the cygwin-oriented
patches which are very few (but they were different and therefore
probably better than the on-the-fly hacking I did in the past).

As a result, what is currently in CVS here:
  http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=61395

will build on cygwin without any modification. I ran all of the
debugger regression tests yesterday without problem. Debugging is
slow, but it works. I've been able to debug for example large (10,000
line) configure scripts.

The latest release of ddd, 3.3.7, has support for the bashdb debugger
as does as what the currentin GNU Emacs CVS - however a standalone GNU
Emacs interface also comes with the package in the interrum.

Starting with the next the next rebash/bashdb release, 0.43, decent
debugging of bash programs (and having a timestamped history which is
customizable in the date format output) is possible in cygwin by
compiling from the main distributed source.

There is one small doc build warning in CVS that needs to get cleared
up before release; someone else promised to undertake doing
this. However folks are encouraged to try what's in CVS, especially on
Cygwin to make sure the release is flawless (at least for Cygwin).

However I'll be unsubsribing from cygwin@cygwin.com soon. So if you
have any further comments, although of course you can post to this
list, I probably won't see. 

 > 
 > The Cygwin version is vanilla bash plus patches 001 to 004 plus the
 > below patches:


Actually, if you look here:

  http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-2.05b-patches/

you'll see that there are 3 more from March of this year. The
rebash/bashdb CVS sources have these applied as well. Some of the
fixes from Debian are also probably worth applying as some of them
aren't necessarily specific to Debian. These would be in the db
directory in CVS. 

And last, but certainly not least, is that issue of coordinating
patches between cygwin and rebash/bashdb.


--
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/

Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:14:21AM -0400, R. Bernstein wrote:
>  > The Cygwin version is vanilla bash plus patches 001 to 004 plus the
>  > below patches:
> Actually, if you look here:
> 
>   http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-2.05b-patches/
> 
> you'll see that there are 3 more from March of this year. The
> rebash/bashdb CVS sources have these applied as well. Some of the
> fixes from Debian are also probably worth applying as some of them
> aren't necessarily specific to Debian. These would be in the db
> directory in CVS. 
> 
> And last, but certainly not least, is that issue of coordinating
> patches between cygwin and rebash/bashdb.
The patches that have not been applied yet will be applied in the next
release. As I don't use Debian (only RH8 and Gentoo) their patches will
have to wait until they're pushed up stream to vanilla Bash.

OTOH, if you know about patches that might be interesting for Cygwin users,
then PTC will, of course, apply :)

As for coordinating patches between Cygwin bash and your bash, you'll have
the patches applied in the source package, as I'll be using method #2. You'll
be able to get them from the source tarball at every release.

rlc

-- 
You roll my log, and I will roll yours.
		-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca

--
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/

Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

[R. Bernstein]

This is all a bit too cryptic for me. 

Ronald Landheer-Cieslak writes:
 > The patches that have not been applied yet will be applied in the next
 > release. 

Whose release? If you are talking about a cygwin release, yes, I'd
imagine one would want to put in public patches that are missing :-)

Assuming you are talking about a cygwin release, is there a schedule
for that? Aside from the 6-month-old public patches, is anything else
currently planned? Is there a publically accessible CVS or cygwin-bash
mailing list that one can track what's this other stuff might be?

 > As I don't use Debian (only RH8 and Gentoo) their patches will
 > have to wait until they're pushed up stream to vanilla Bash.
 > 
 > OTOH, if you know about patches that might be interesting for Cygwin users,
 > then PTC will, of course, apply :)

What's PTC? 

 > 
 > As for coordinating patches between Cygwin bash and your bash, you'll have
 > the patches applied in the source package, as I'll be using method #2. 

I'm lost as to what you are referring to. What's method #1 and what's
method #2.

 > You'll
 > be able to get them from the source tarball at every release.

You mean I can do a diff -Naur? Or are there patches available with
the release from the previous release?

As I wrote above, I find this a bit cryptic. It sort of sounds like
you are saying that if I find any patches that I think might be useful
for cygwin I should send them along and if I want figure out what changes
cygwin has made to bash, I can diff the source whenever a release
comes out.

I was hoping for better coordination here. 

--
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/

Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net)

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:13:21AM -0400, R. Bernstein wrote:
> This is all a bit too cryptic for me. 
> 
> Ronald Landheer-Cieslak writes:
>  > The patches that have not been applied yet will be applied in the next
>  > release. 
> 
> Whose release? If you are talking about a cygwin release, yes, I'd
> imagine one would want to put in public patches that are missing :-)
Really now, what other release would I be talking about with my spiffy new 
Cygwin-bash maintainer hat on?
 
> Assuming you are talking about a cygwin release, is there a schedule
> for that? Aside from the 6-month-old public patches, is anything else
> currently planned? Is there a publically accessible CVS or cygwin-bash
> mailing list that one can track what's this other stuff might be?
As for the release schedule: I'm compiling now. I've just finished the 
different new files (README and somesuch) which, seeing as I have this 
spiffy new maintainers hat since a couple of hours ago, is not bad IMHO.

As for other patches than the official and the Cygwin-specific ones: there
are none. The Cygwin-specific ones are the same as for the previous release
and AFAIK, there are no new issues.

>> As I don't use Debian (only RH8 and Gentoo) their patches will
>> have to wait until they're pushed up stream to vanilla Bash.
>> 
>> OTOH, if you know about patches that might be interesting for Cygwin users,
>> then PTC will, of course, apply :)
> What's PTC? 
Patches Thoughfully Considered - it's in the OLOCA *and* in wtf:
$ wtf PTC
ptc: Patches Thoughtfully Considered.  The new Cygwin catchphrase. Apparently 
replaces PGA.  The catchphrase was introduced by Christopher Faylor. The 
acronym was introduced...  Well, never mind, you get the picture...
$ wtf OLOCA
oloca: Official List of Cygwin Acronyms.  This document. Coined by yours truly.
Guess we're stuck with it now..

"Yours truely" in this context being Igor (the CKOA), not me.

>  > As for coordinating patches between Cygwin bash and your bash, you'll have
>  > the patches applied in the source package, as I'll be using method #2. 
> I'm lost as to what you are referring to. What's method #1 and what's
> method #2.
see http://cygwin.com/setup.html.
Suffice it to say that the source package will now be the canonical one, with
a patch and a build script at its side.

>  > You'll be able to get them from the source tarball at every release.
> You mean I can do a diff -Naur? Or are there patches available with
> the release from the previous release?
They will be in the file bash-<canonical version>-<Cygwin release>.patch in the
source tarball of the distribution.

> As I wrote above, I find this a bit cryptic. It sort of sounds like
> you are saying that if I find any patches that I think might be useful
> for cygwin I should send them along and if I want figure out what changes
> cygwin has made to bash, I can diff the source whenever a release
> comes out.
> 
> I was hoping for better coordination here. 
If you have a patch that you think is interesting for Bash in general, please
send it up stream.
If you have a patch that you think is only interesting for Cygwin, please send
it to me by means of the cygwin at cygwin dot com list.
If you want to know what patches have been applied to the latest Cygwin release,
download the source and look for the .patch file - it's all in there (or rather,
will be as soon as -14 gets out).


-- 
<lame ascii art>
       +----+
       | BB |  <-- my spiffy new Cygwin Bash Maintainer Hat ;)
       | AA |
       | SS |
       | HH |
     +-Cygwin-+
      | o  o |
      |  ||  |
      \ \__/ /
       \____/
</lame ascii art>
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence.
		-- Jeremy S. Anderson

--
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/