1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 00:42:01 +0100 |
4 |
> Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> as I now learnt, Bash 3.2 vanilla is not enough for some eclasses |
6 |
>> to run. Patchlevel 48 is needed. |
7 |
|
8 |
What eclasses are this? _p48 isn't marked as stable. |
9 |
|
10 |
>> Should we tighten the version string for Bash? |
11 |
|
12 |
I don't think there's a need for this, as the patches are only |
13 |
bugfixes. |
14 |
|
15 |
> Didn't the Council say that if it ever happened again, there should |
16 |
> be forced reverts rather than updating PMS retroactively? |
17 |
|
18 |
Yes, but any =bash-3.2* is still allowed: |
19 |
|
20 |
| Vote (6 yes, 1 no): Ebuilds must be completely parsable with |
21 |
| =bash-3.2*, any use of later bash features will be reverted. |
22 |
|
23 |
See also the log [1] where the example of 3.2_p39 is explicitly |
24 |
mentioned at one point. |
25 |
|
26 |
Ulrich |
27 |
|
28 |
[1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt> |