On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:59 +0200 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > 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. > > If you read the quoted council log, you'll find that the retroactive > change was done because usage of bash 3.2 features in the tree was > already widespread at that time. This is very different from the > current situation, therefore it is not at all a precedent. The current situation is that you can't even install bash-3.2 systemwide because of the number of packages [ebuilds/eclasses] requiring on bash-4. I myself had to prefix-install bash to test my code against it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
