| 1 |
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:28:44 +0200 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> [ fix PMS to demand bash 3.2 instead of 3.0 ] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Sorry, we can't change this for three reasons. |
| 6 |
> We have to change it for one reason: Specs need to match reality |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
PMS isn't the place to push through changes. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > First, it's a retroactive change to an older EAPI. We don't have the |
| 11 |
> > authority to do that. |
| 12 |
> Who does? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The Council. Probably no-one else. We've always gone to the gentoo-dev |
| 15 |
list for consultations (explaining the full impact of the issue), and |
| 16 |
then asked for Council approval for retroactive changes to existing |
| 17 |
EAPIs. I think a lot of people would be very uncomfortable with the |
| 18 |
idea of the PMS project having the authority to make that kind of |
| 19 |
decision on its own. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> > Third, changing it breaks sourcing done by older, Council-approved |
| 22 |
> > EAPI compliant package managers. We can't do this, and we can't |
| 23 |
> > even do it on an EAPI bump. |
| 24 |
> Wargharbl. |
| 25 |
> Not changing it breaks sourcing on council-approved trees. We can do |
| 26 |
> it, and we have to do it if PMS is supposed to have any relevance at |
| 27 |
> all. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
No, the change can't be made without breaking the upgrade path. Users |
| 30 |
who have an old EAPI 0 system with bash 3.0 installed need to be able |
| 31 |
to upgrade it, and they can't do that if they can't source ebuilds. The |
| 32 |
impact of the change you're suggesting has to be considered, and it's |
| 33 |
not a simple decision to make. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> > The solution here's to fix the tree. |
| 36 |
> That might have been a possible solution a year ago. Too late now. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Possibly, possibly not. It depends upon whether the Council considers |
| 39 |
the upgrade path to be important. Users do frequently complain when the |
| 40 |
upgrade path gets broken, so it's not a simple decision to make. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> (Also, if you want to play semantic games ... |
| 43 |
> "The interpreter is assumed to be GNU bash, version 3.0 or later." |
| 44 |
> One could interpret it that any version [and any feature provided by |
| 45 |
> later versions] is acceptable, which would allow bash4 features in |
| 46 |
> ebuilds now as bash4 is stable. That would definitely not be what |
| 47 |
> you'd expect.) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
No, that's not what that means. It means ebuilds may assume that it's |
| 50 |
at least version 3.0, and so may make use of 3.0 features, but they may |
| 51 |
not make any other assumptions about versions (including assuming that |
| 52 |
things that work in bash 3 but not bash 4 are legal). |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives