Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:42:40
Message-Id: 20081220094233.GA1272@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do? by Steve Long
1 On 20-12-2008 05:35:25 +0000, Steve Long wrote:
2 > I note that bash-3.2_p17-r1 is stable on all the architectures that 3.0-r12
3 > lists (it just adds the two -fbsd archs as unstable.) portage-2.1.4.5
4 > requires at least that version (only unstable on mips as against 2.1.1-r2)
5 > It might be worth skipping to 3.2, since that would simplify regex handling.
6
7 The only problem we have there is that bash-3.2.17 only comes in patches
8 on top of 3.2. During bootstrap that's problematic, as gnu patch (or
9 any other patch) might not be available, or simply b0rked.
10 For that reason we bootstrap with a portage pre SVN revision 10460,
11 which does not require >=3.2.17.
12 See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229677#c11 on why PMS should
13 require 3.2.17 over plain 3.2 if you decide to push the requirement
14 update.
15
16 We can work around it by using a self-made pre-patched tarball, though.
17
18
19 --
20 Fabian Groffen
21 Gentoo on a different level

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do? Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>