* cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) @ 2003-09-11 14:54 R. Bernstein 2003-09-11 15:23 ` Corinna Vinschen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: R. Bernstein @ 2003-09-11 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) 2003-09-11 14:54 cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) R. Bernstein @ 2003-09-11 15:23 ` Corinna Vinschen 2003-09-11 20:50 ` R. Bernstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2003-09-11 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) 2003-09-11 15:23 ` Corinna Vinschen @ 2003-09-11 20:50 ` R. Bernstein 2003-09-12 11:31 ` Corinna Vinschen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: R. Bernstein @ 2003-09-11 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) 2003-09-11 20:50 ` R. Bernstein @ 2003-09-12 11:31 ` Corinna Vinschen 2003-09-12 12:14 ` R. Bernstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2003-09-12 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) 2003-09-12 11:31 ` Corinna Vinschen @ 2003-09-12 12:14 ` R. Bernstein 2003-09-12 12:45 ` Ronald Landheer-Cieslak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: R. Bernstein @ 2003-09-12 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) 2003-09-12 12:14 ` R. Bernstein @ 2003-09-12 12:45 ` Ronald Landheer-Cieslak 2003-09-12 14:13 ` R. Bernstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak @ 2003-09-12 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) 2003-09-12 12:45 ` Ronald Landheer-Cieslak @ 2003-09-12 14:13 ` R. Bernstein 2003-09-12 14:48 ` Ronald Landheer-Cieslak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: R. Bernstein @ 2003-09-12 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) 2003-09-12 14:13 ` R. Bernstein @ 2003-09-12 14:48 ` Ronald Landheer-Cieslak 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak @ 2003-09-12 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-12 14:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-09-11 14:54 cygwin bash 2.05b patches and "rebash" a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) R. Bernstein 2003-09-11 15:23 ` Corinna Vinschen 2003-09-11 20:50 ` R. Bernstein 2003-09-12 11:31 ` Corinna Vinschen 2003-09-12 12:14 ` R. Bernstein 2003-09-12 12:45 ` Ronald Landheer-Cieslak 2003-09-12 14:13 ` R. Bernstein 2003-09-12 14:48 ` Ronald Landheer-Cieslak
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).