From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LDucz-0005Hs-Tf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C3398E051B; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648D5E051B for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B282650A9 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.859 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.859 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.673, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wltWeIrK-qnW for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCB465098 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LDucj-00023V-Ih for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:37 +0000 Received: from 82.152.207.172 ([82.152.207.172]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:37 +0000 Received: from slong by 82.152.207.172 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:43:37 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do? Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:35:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: <90b936c0812161546u7df31557t603f6d78c71016bd@mail.gmail.com> 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-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.152.207.172 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 47bc4f85-4d6c-4be4-9f3f-6cf3078cce20 X-Archives-Hash: c860927b36c37fdfd340bc2b9dbb2eee Jeremy Olexa wrote: > This causes me pain on my hosts that don't have >=bash-3.1[0] for > /bin/bash. Because I can't install portage with an old bash until I > get a new python installed which uses python.eclass which isn't > supported with my /bin/bash (quite circular indeed) > > Technically there are workarounds for me...but it is still annoying. > So...what do we do? A) Specifically allow >=bash-3.1 features in > ebuilds/eclasses. or B) revert the commit because the PMS says[1] that > we comply with >bash-3.0 > > Please discuss, thanks. I'd vote for updating the spec; it's going to be a pita trying to maintain the tree without +=. From our discussion, you said it was fine for prefix to specify a minimum version of bash for bootstrap, but clearly that can't be 3.1 when the draft PMS says 3.0. I note that bash-3.2_p17-r1 is stable on all the architectures that 3.0-r12 lists (it just adds the two -fbsd archs as unstable.) portage-2.1.4.5 requires at least that version (only unstable on mips as against 2.1.1-r2) It might be worth skipping to 3.2, since that would simplify regex handling. Not sure how that should be framed, or when it's okay to do it; clearly a spec has to be updatable, whether it's by a specified policy, or explicitly.