1 |
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:59 +0200 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> >>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > Thanks for the reminder; I looked, and it turns out that we now have |
7 |
> > a great precedent. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> > Quoting PMS: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> > "The required bash version was retroactively updated from 3.0 to 3.2 |
12 |
> > in November 2009 (see http://www.gentoo. |
13 |
> > org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt)." |
14 |
> |
15 |
> > So we could just retroactively update it again and let people scream |
16 |
> > if they're actually affected by this. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> If you read the quoted council log, you'll find that the retroactive |
19 |
> change was done because usage of bash 3.2 features in the tree was |
20 |
> already widespread at that time. This is very different from the |
21 |
> current situation, therefore it is not at all a precedent. |
22 |
|
23 |
The current situation is that you can't even install bash-3.2 |
24 |
systemwide because of the number of packages [ebuilds/eclasses] |
25 |
requiring on bash-4. |
26 |
|
27 |
I myself had to prefix-install bash to test my code against it. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Best regards, |
31 |
Michał Górny |