Bug 131977 - 'bashbug' command referred to but not present
Summary: 'bashbug' command referred to but not present
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: bash
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tim Waugh
QA Contact: Ben Levenson
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2004-09-07 16:45 UTC by Zack Cerza
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:10 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-10-05 15:45:03 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Zack Cerza 2004-09-07 16:45:25 UTC
Description of problem:
In the bash man and info pages, and in bash's --help output, it is
mentioned that bugs should be reported via a command called 'bashbug',
but the command doesn't actually exist in the bash package.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
bash-3.0-9

Additional info:
Running 'locate bashbug' on a recent full rawhide install reveals the
following files:

/usr/share/man/fr/man1/bashbug.1.gz/usr/share/man/ja/man1/bashbug.1.gz
(man-pages-ja-20040815-1)
/usr/share/man/fr/man1/bashbug.1.gz (man-pages-fr-0.9.7-10)

If the bashbug utility won't be returning to the bash package, those
packages should probably have bugs filed on them.

Comment 1 Zack Cerza 2004-09-07 16:46:50 UTC
Uh, the 'following files' are really:

/usr/share/man/ja/man1/bashbug.1.gz (man-pages-ja-20040815-1)
/usr/share/man/fr/man1/bashbug.1.gz (man-pages-fr-0.9.7-10)

Comment 2 Tim Waugh 2004-09-07 16:53:07 UTC
It's removed for multilib.

Comment 3 Tim Waugh 2004-09-07 17:15:15 UTC
Building fixed bash package now.

Comment 4 Zack Cerza 2004-10-05 15:28:37 UTC
OK, I have a bashbug-64 now. Not sure why it's called that, since it's
a shell script, but hey.

bashbug-64 spawns xemacs when run in X. Looking in the script, it
tries 4 flavors of emacs before anything else that will normally
exist. Personally I'm a vim user (not to start a flamewar, emacs
genuinely confuses me), but maybe we could make, say, nano the
default? Not everyone knows how to use either emacs or vi, but nano is
a really easy-to-use editor.

Comment 5 Tim Waugh 2004-10-05 15:45:03 UTC
It's easy for someone who doesn't like emacs to just use:

 EDITOR=vim bashbug


Comment 6 Zack Cerza 2004-10-05 15:51:09 UTC
Ah, you're right. I should be exporting that anyway. Thanks :)


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.