Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:49:56 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which is the basic differences between the shells? Message-ID: <87wrubkz0r.fsf@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <20100606075751.6453f6ef@scorpio> (Jerry's message of "Sun, 6 Jun 2010 07:57:51 -0400") References: <AANLkTinG745GjOaZKLT1TfKgqVi6VHt9-ciHWQUY57VT@mail.gmail.com> <87k4qc5ryr.fsf@kobe.laptop> <20100606075751.6453f6ef@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 07:57:51 -0400, Jerry <freebsd.user@seibercom.net> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:19:08 +0300 > Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> articulated: >> You can always install bash with "pkg_add". The default package is >> not built as a static binary, but you can compile a static bash >> binary from its port: >> >> # cd /usr/ports/shells/bash >> # make WITH_STATIC_BASH=1 install clean > > I thought that was what this port was for: > > Port: bash-static-4.1.5_2 > Path: /usr/ports/shells/bash-static > Info: The GNU Project's Bourne Again SHell Yes, that's what bash-static enables. I only mentioned WITH_STATIC_BASH because it's what I usually prefer to avoid gettext/libintl.so troubles when portupgrade is still half-done and I want to open a new screen window or xterm.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87wrubkz0r.fsf>