List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 17:58 Tue 13 Sep , Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 09/13/11 16:44, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > It's because people want to pretend that it's possible for
> > incredibly outdated systems (those with bash-3 only) to be updated.
> Actually it's worse - PMS enforces this, and the only clean way out is
> to patch/fix/extend PMS to allow bash4 - but that breaks compatibility
> in silly ways.
> The proper way to handle that? I'm not sure, since we had a long fight
> to get PMS to acknowledge bash 3.2 instead of 3.0 I'm mostly ignoring
> PMS as it doesn't care about reality.
Thanks for the reminder; I looked, and it turns out that we now have a
great precedent. Quoting PMS:
"The required bash version was retroactively updated from 3.0 to 3.2 in
November 2009 (see http://www.gentoo.
So we could just retroactively update it again and let people scream if
they're actually affected by this.
> > We're stuck in this limbo because "we" have apparently decided that
> > just waiting a year, as we used to do, isn't good enough anymore;
> > but at the same time, we don't have a better mechanism in place yet.
> > So we're waffling around, doing nothing.
> That's not quite correct for this case, but it shows that we need to
> discuss destructive changes (in the sense that they are not
> backwards-compatible etc.) to have any decent progress
Maybe a way to set tree-level dependencies/EAPIs/features is something
we seriously need to get going on.
Council Member / Sr. Developer