From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB673138010 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:37:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 94F47E0CF9; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:37:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9549EE0CB0 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from portable (AMontpellier-651-1-308-49.w92-133.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.133.67.49]) (using SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47C9433DC58 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:37:44 +0200 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable Message-ID: <20130402143744.532b4ae8@portable> In-Reply-To: <515ACFDA.4090605@gentoo.org> References: <515ACE47.3030206@gentoo.org> <20130402142933.2e76831c@portable> <515ACFDA.4090605@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a6739649-8bb3-43a6-8bfe-50cece7d8527 X-Archives-Hash: f95999e4555caf0d7ee9ee1a84590414 On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:32:26 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200 > > hasufell wrote: > > > >> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most > >> package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable > >> then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this > >> breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. > >> Otherwise, just punt it? > >> > > > > (this is pure speculation and I didn't check) > > > > isn't it the pivot of some upgrade path like 'update bash to 3.1, > > portage to xx.xx, bash to latest, portage to latest' ? > > > > Alexis. > > > > afair the upgrade path was for 1 year? > > 3.1 is blocked way longer > but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older upgrade paths?