On 17:58 Tue 13 Sep , Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 09/13/11 16:44, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > It's because people want to pretend that it's possible for > > incredibly outdated systems (those with bash-3 only) to be updated. > > Actually it's worse - PMS enforces this, and the only clean way out is > to patch/fix/extend PMS to allow bash4 - but that breaks compatibility > in silly ways. > > The proper way to handle that? I'm not sure, since we had a long fight > to get PMS to acknowledge bash 3.2 instead of 3.0 I'm mostly ignoring > PMS as it doesn't care about reality.
Thanks for the reminder; I looked, and it turns out that we now have a great precedent. Quoting PMS: "The required bash version was retroactively updated from 3.0 to 3.2 in November 2009 (see http://www.gentoo. org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt)." So we could just retroactively update it again and let people scream if they're actually affected by this. > > We're stuck in this limbo because "we" have apparently decided that > > just waiting a year, as we used to do, isn't good enough anymore; > > but at the same time, we don't have a better mechanism in place yet. > > So we're waffling around, doing nothing. > > That's not quite correct for this case, but it shows that we need to > discuss destructive changes (in the sense that they are not > backwards-compatible etc.) to have any decent progress Maybe a way to set tree-level dependencies/EAPIs/features is something we seriously need to get going on. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com
pgpdqwj5WnNHA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
