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.
