From fnaumann@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Wed Aug 4 16:17:38 2004 Subject: Re: [MiNT] bash 3.0 From: Mark Duckworth To: Mint List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: Atari-source.com Message-Id: <1091628639.4660.8.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:10:39 -0400 Delivered-To: mint@fishpool.com Delivered-To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: mduckworth@atari-source.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-ID: X-List-ID: X-Milter: ClamAV 0.70/0.70kjel X-Milter: milter-regex 1.5jel X-Milter: ClamAV 0.70/0.70kjel X-Milter: milter-regex 1.5jel Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by prinz.cs.uni-magdeburg.de id i74EHO0R003699 On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 09:29, Maurits van de Kamp wrote: > On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, [iso-8859-2] Adam Kłobukowski wrote: > > > Bash 3.0 has been released. Binary for FreeMiNT is about 40kb bigger then > > the previous version. Should we switch to 3.0 or stick to the old version? > > Bash was already pretty memory hungry, so on 1MB systems (or 4MB with AES) > it was best avoided anyway, and for the higher end systems 40k shouldn't > be much of a problem.. > > Besides, isn't it up to the user what version to install? (I don't think > there's anything wrong with putting Bash 3.0 in by default). I believe sparemint will only contain the latest version of a package, unlike a cvs repository for instance. So the user who is on a system so weak that they can't use bash 3.0 certainly won't be able to compile bash 2. Sparemint could start saving old packages but it might require some coding. I'm a php man, not a perl man ;-) Mark http://portal.atari-source.com