| 1 |
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 09:28:57AM +0200, Penguin Lover Rumen Yotov squawked: |
| 2 |
> >You're welcome. What I'd like to know is in which universe portage could |
| 3 |
> >block bash <puzzled> |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >It just sounds a bit daft, sort of like OpenOffice blocking mutt... |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> Thinking about it, much of portage is bash-scripts, no. |
| 8 |
> Maybe some portage features depend on newer bash functions, just guessing. |
| 9 |
> HTH. Rumen |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
See bgo#196278 and the bash changelog |
| 12 |
http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/COMPAT |
| 13 |
In particular point 29 about handling of the % character in parameter |
| 14 |
replacement. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In short, bash changes behaviour (another one is how special |
| 17 |
characters in regexp inside a test is dealt with; that one bit me |
| 18 |
personally). Rather than coding portage to switch function/variable |
| 19 |
definitions based on bash version, the portage devs feel that it is |
| 20 |
easier to just make it depend on the newer version of bash. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
W |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Microsoft Word told me that instead of having "Windows ME and Linux" as |
| 25 |
my computer expertise on my resume, I should have "Windows, Linux, and I". |
| 26 |
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 439 days, 14:05 |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives