| 1 |
On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Willie Wong wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 09:28:57AM +0200, Penguin Lover Rumen Yotov |
| 3 |
squawked: |
| 4 |
> > >You're welcome. What I'd like to know is in which universe portage |
| 5 |
> > > could block bash <puzzled> |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > >It just sounds a bit daft, sort of like OpenOffice blocking |
| 8 |
> > > mutt... |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Thinking about it, much of portage is bash-scripts, no. |
| 11 |
> > Maybe some portage features depend on newer bash functions, just |
| 12 |
> > guessing. HTH. Rumen |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> See bgo#196278 and the bash changelog |
| 15 |
> http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/COMPAT |
| 16 |
> In particular point 29 about handling of the % character in parameter |
| 17 |
> replacement. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> In short, bash changes behaviour (another one is how special |
| 20 |
> characters in regexp inside a test is dealt with; that one bit me |
| 21 |
> personally). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
OK, that now makes a lot of sense, thanks. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Rather than coding portage to switch function/variable |
| 26 |
> definitions based on bash version, |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
which would be disgustingly ugly :-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> the portage devs feel that it is |
| 31 |
> easier to just make it depend on the newer version of bash. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Yes, a very sane decision |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 38 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives