Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Bash features
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:05:47
Message-Id: 19272.15307.279638.864461@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Bash features by Ciaran McCreesh
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 00:42:01 +0100 > Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> wrote: >> as I now learnt, Bash 3.2 vanilla is not enough for some eclasses >> to run. Patchlevel 48 is needed.
What eclasses are this? _p48 isn't marked as stable.
>> Should we tighten the version string for Bash?
I don't think there's a need for this, as the patches are only bugfixes.
> Didn't the Council say that if it ever happened again, there should > be forced reverts rather than updating PMS retroactively?
Yes, but any =bash-3.2* is still allowed: | Vote (6 yes, 1 no): Ebuilds must be completely parsable with | =bash-3.2*, any use of later bash features will be reverted. See also the log [1] where the example of 3.2_p39 is explicitly mentioned at one point. Ulrich [1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt>

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Bash features Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-pms] Bash features Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>