Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:21:22
Message-Id: 20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009 by Donnie Berkholz
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:10:55 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:
> On 16:21 Thu 12 Feb , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:16:45 -0800 > > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: > > > I think we should update the PMS to bash 3.1 to allow for '+=' > > > use. I looked through the bash changelog, and 3.2 didn't appear > > > to add any new and useful features. We should then require a new > > > EAPI for new bash features. > > > > That would require GLEP 55 to provide any protection. A new EAPI on > > its own wouldn't be enough. > > What kind of protection are you talking about
The problem is, without GLEP 55, EAPI isn't known before the ebuild is sourced to generate metadata. If someone uses += anywhere that older bash looks when sourcing for metadata generation (which is not just global scope), the package manager won't know that the EAPI says that bash-3.1 is required for sourcing until after it's already done the sourcing, by which point it's too late.
> and is it already in place for every bash feature in 3.0?
The bash 3.0 transition was done before EAPIs came along, and was handled by the old fashioned "wait for ages until we're absolutely sure that everyone has bash 3.0 before continuing" method. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009 Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>