1 |
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> > I'd like council to discuss what I consider a major bug in PMS - |
3 |
> > see the discussion at |
4 |
> > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/msg_95a13d880eb521b13d7090f30350c26 |
5 |
> >a.xml |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Could the both of you please flesh out a proposal on how you'd expect |
8 |
> the council to solve these issues? |
9 |
|
10 |
Problem: |
11 |
Usage of bash 3.2 features in ebuilds and eclasses where PMS forces bash 3.0 |
12 |
Apart from potentially breaking backwards compatibility etc. this is an |
13 |
inconsistency between specification and product. |
14 |
|
15 |
Possible solutions: |
16 |
1) Forbid bash 3.2 features. |
17 |
Impact: Cleanup of many eclasses, lots of work for maintainers, removes |
18 |
actively used and useful functionality. Makes many people unhappy. |
19 |
|
20 |
2) Fix PMS to require bash 3.2 |
21 |
Impact: one-line patch to PMS, small reduction in backwards compatibility |
22 |
As bash 3.2 was added Oct 2006 and stabled May 2007 this would only affect |
23 |
systems not updated for over 2 years, which is far beyond our usual support |
24 |
horizon. Thus compatibility impact is negligible. |
25 |
|
26 |
3) Ignore it |
27 |
Impact: Well, it's what we've been doing for a year now. Seems to work out ok, |
28 |
but it's slightly unsatisfying. |
29 |
|
30 |
4) something else? |
31 |
|
32 |
I strongly suggest (2) since it has a very low impact, comes at no cost to |
33 |
maintainers and removes the need for endless further discussions of the topic. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
> It would best if, on top of telling |
37 |
> what should be done, you explained why it should be done this way. |
38 |
> Raising the questions is already interesting but proposing answers is |
39 |
> even better. You may have done that elsewhere before but summarizing |
40 |
> it here would help tremendously. And by the way those who know they |
41 |
> will disagree with the above posters are welcome to make proposals of |
42 |
> their own. It would be nice if we'd all get an opportunity to discuss |
43 |
> it here before the council meeting. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Denis. |
46 |
> |