| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 21:28 Wed 21 Jan , Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Can we get a consensus on bash version in the tree? this thread[1] is |
| 4 |
>> unresolved. I understand that the PMS draft is not set in stone (or |
| 5 |
>> something), but please...let's progress and update the spec[2]. I feel |
| 6 |
>> that this makes it hard for other projects relying on Gentoo to do some |
| 7 |
>> things without being able to *know* what version of bash is allowed. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Which projects relying on Gentoo are having a hard time? It's helpful to |
| 10 |
> know the impact of a problem when deciding what to do about it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well.. pet projects, nothing major really. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
However, |
| 16 |
In Gentoo Prefix, I found the issue in the original post on the other |
| 17 |
thread because my host system had bash-3.0 on it so I wanted to save a |
| 18 |
lengthy compile on an obscure platform. If Gentoo specs say "bash-3.X is |
| 19 |
guarenteed to work" then it is simple to say that we require that the |
| 20 |
user compiles this version while bootstrapping a new Prefix. Otherwise, |
| 21 |
its a mystery what works. Some platforms that I bootstrap on have |
| 22 |
bash-2.05 and it would be nice to *know* what I should upgrade to. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think the spec should just be upgraded because it isn't exactly |
| 25 |
obvious to the casual dev what is a 3.0 feature vs 3.1, etc. We already |
| 26 |
have 3.1 features in the tree, I'm not sure where the red tape is here. |
Archives