| 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> |
Archives