On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 22:24 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Monday, 28 January 2019 at 03:57, Neal Gompa wrote: > [...] > > My understanding is that generally script breakage is considered a bug > > and would have priority for fixing in bash anyway, so I *really* don't > > think there's any harm in doing this. GCC is an order of magnitude > > worse than bash, and we do fine with that *every year*. Something that > > straight up says it's not intending to break scripts that just happens > > to say it's a 5.0 release should not be as much of a cause for > > concern. > > We do (upgrade GCC), but it's always a System Wide Change, and that > is the only issue with this proposal (which was submitted as a > Self-contained Change).
It's not the "only" issue, because it was submitted over two weeks *after* the deadline for system-wide changes. I am somewhat concerned about dropping in a major new bash version quite late in the cycle and just before the mass rebuild, particularly when there are bits like this in the announcement: "There are a number of changes to the expansion of $@ and $* in various contexts where word splitting is not performed to conform to a Posix standard interpretation, and additional changes to resolve corner cases for Posix conformance." (are you *sure* all our corner cases are expecting Posix-conformant behaviour? I'm not) "The `globasciiranges' shell option is now enabled by default; it can be set to off by default at configuration time." (OK, so we can turn it off again if necessary, but still, could be interesting) "There are a few incompatible changes between bash-4.4 and bash-5.0" (sure, these are in 'rarely used' things, but we have an awful *lot* of shell scripts in us. We're a Linux distribution, it comes with the territory. I'm pretty sure we use those 'rarely used' thing at least somewhere) that *plus* the required readline version bump *plus* the suggestion that some significant bugs were already discovered in the .0 release makes me a little hesitant about this. I'm not saying "no!", but...it certainly strikes me as a potentially disruptive change that needs some kind of justification to go in late beyond "NEW SHINY". -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
