| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:58:15 +0200 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > It's because people want to pretend that it's possible for |
| 4 |
> > incredibly outdated systems (those with bash-3 only) to be updated. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Actually it's worse - PMS enforces this, and the only clean way out is |
| 7 |
> to patch/fix/extend PMS to allow bash4 - but that breaks compatibility |
| 8 |
> in silly ways. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The proper way to handle that? I'm not sure, since we had a long fight |
| 11 |
> to get PMS to acknowledge bash 3.2 instead of 3.0 I'm mostly ignoring |
| 12 |
> PMS as it doesn't care about reality. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The proper fix for this, along with a whole bunch of other things, is |
| 15 |
GLEP 55. Don't blame the PMS team for that not having been implemented. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As for you ignoring the specification, the reason that problems like |
| 18 |
this exist is precisely because of you doing that. Do you code websites |
| 19 |
based purely upon what Internet Explorer supports? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives