1 |
On Saturday 09 January 2010 18:44:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> > Doesn't the way that's worded mean "it has to work with every single |
3 |
> > 3.2 patch", though? I take that to mean "must be completely parsable |
4 |
> > with bash-3.2_p0 through bash-3.2_p9999", not "must work with at |
5 |
> > least one version of bash-3.2_psomething". |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Then we could simply have said "must be parsable with =bash-3.2" which |
8 |
> we didn't. Clearly, the main idea was to disallow usage of bash-4* |
9 |
> features. |
10 |
|
11 |
That would completely defeat the purpose of specifying a version at all. |
12 |
|
13 |
The most sensible interpretation would be to treat the bash version |
14 |
requirement in the same way as an ebuild dependency. If an ebuild says |
15 |
>=app-shells/bash-3.2 (it should be >= here, not =*, because ebuilds need to |
16 |
work with bash 4 too, but the principle is the same), then it means the |
17 |
ebuild is expected to work with /any/ version that matches the dependency. |
18 |
The only difference is that we have a spec that defines the "dependency" |
19 |
which ebuilds are supposed to respect, as opposed to documenting the |
20 |
requirements of a package that someone already wrote. |