Re: whatever happened with bash_completion, bashdb

["Reini Urban" <rurban at x-ray dot at>]

I've updated bash_completion last week, but did not do so with the
debugger, because I wanted to wait until your bash-3.0 will stabilize.
It's just at my private setup site, since it's no official package.
  http://tu.xarch.at/publ/cygwin

Unfortunately my site died yesterday due to a hacker who turned off httpd,
so it will need some days to turn it on again. Finally I have to bite the
bullet and clean init.

If you want to please take it over, eric.
If it's urgent I'll sent you the patches and .sh per email.

> A long time ago, Reini proposed an ITP for bashdb and bash_completion:
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-10/msg00423.html.  Following
> through that thread, the biggest controversy was bashdb, since it didn't
> play well with bash-2.05b, and Reini didn't want to package
> bash_completion without bashdb.  The thread seemed to die here, with
> nothing added to the
> distribution: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-10/msg00579.html
>
> Anyways, now that bash has a new maintainer, and has been bumped to 3.0,
> does that ease the interaction of packaging a shell-script debugger?

sure, still some patches to apply but easier than with 2.05b

> Also, I would like to see bash_completion added to the distribution.

that's very easy, but this should be a seperate package.

> Are you still interested in providing these packages, Reini?

not really.
-- 
Reini Urban
http://phpwiki.org/   http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/