From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 16:10:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C665737B401 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA2843FDD for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:10:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h55NAHUp004387 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:10:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h55NAHDS004386; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200306052310.h55NAHDS004386@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Sergey Matveychuk Subject: Re: ports/52790: New port: shells/bash-completion X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Sergey Matveychuk List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:10:19 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/52790; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sergey Matveychuk To: Kirk Strauser Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/52790: New port: shells/bash-completion Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 03:08:45 +0400 Kirk Strauser wrote: > Thanks for fixing that. It worked correctly on my system before using the > "shar" command to create the archive, but I don't know enough about that > command to get it to do the right thing. I think the pacth was good and may be shar archive too. But something has changed tabs with white spaces. May be your MUA? > Should it be dependent on bash2? While I agree that it's mostly useless > without bash2, isn't there a possibility that it could be regarded as > documentation, or used with a Linux bash from one of the linux_base > installations? Yes, there is a possibility. But I don't think a man will use bash without putting path to it into $PATH. If so port will satisfied. But if the port will not found bash in $PATH it'll install shell/bash2. I think it's reasonable. --- Sem.