[gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2010-01-15 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org: btw, latest python.eclass requires bash-3.2+ due to parsing errors in the regex checks: $ bash-3.1 -c '[[ a =~ ^(a|b)$ ]]' bash-3.1: -c: line 0: syntax error in conditional expression: unexpected token `(' bash-3.1: -c: line 0: syntax error near `^(a'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2008-12-20 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 20-12-2008 05:35:25 +, Steve Long wrote: 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2008-12-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:35:25 + Steve Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: 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

[gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2008-12-19 Thread Steve Long
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