Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-pms
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: Bash features
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:18:19 +0100
>>>>> 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:
Re: Bash features
-- Christian Faulhammer
Re: Bash features
-- Ciaran McCreesh
References:
Bash features
-- Christian Faulhammer
Re: Bash features
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Bash features
Next by thread:
Re: Bash features
Previous by date:
Re: Bash features
Next by date:
Re: Bash features


Updated Jul 18, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-pms mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.