1 |
On 17:58 Tue 13 Sep , Patrick Lauer wrote: |
2 |
> On 09/13/11 16:44, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
3 |
> > It's because people want to pretend that it's possible for |
4 |
> > incredibly outdated systems (those with bash-3 only) to be updated. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Actually it's worse - PMS enforces this, and the only clean way out is |
7 |
> to patch/fix/extend PMS to allow bash4 - but that breaks compatibility |
8 |
> in silly ways. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> The proper way to handle that? I'm not sure, since we had a long fight |
11 |
> to get PMS to acknowledge bash 3.2 instead of 3.0 I'm mostly ignoring |
12 |
> PMS as it doesn't care about reality. |
13 |
|
14 |
Thanks for the reminder; I looked, and it turns out that we now have a |
15 |
great precedent. Quoting PMS: |
16 |
|
17 |
"The required bash version was retroactively updated from 3.0 to 3.2 in |
18 |
November 2009 (see http://www.gentoo. |
19 |
org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt)." |
20 |
|
21 |
So we could just retroactively update it again and let people scream if |
22 |
they're actually affected by this. |
23 |
|
24 |
> > We're stuck in this limbo because "we" have apparently decided that |
25 |
> > just waiting a year, as we used to do, isn't good enough anymore; |
26 |
> > but at the same time, we don't have a better mechanism in place yet. |
27 |
> > So we're waffling around, doing nothing. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> That's not quite correct for this case, but it shows that we need to |
30 |
> discuss destructive changes (in the sense that they are not |
31 |
> backwards-compatible etc.) to have any decent progress |
32 |
|
33 |
Maybe a way to set tree-level dependencies/EAPIs/features is something |
34 |
we seriously need to get going on. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Thanks, |
38 |
Donnie |
39 |
|
40 |
Donnie Berkholz |
41 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
42 |
Gentoo Linux |
43 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |