[gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it? (this is pure speculation and I didn't check) isn't it the pivot of some upgrade path like 'update bash to 3.1, portage to xx.xx, bash to latest, portage to latest' ? Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it? (this is pure speculation and I didn't check) isn't it the pivot of some upgrade path like 'update bash to 3.1, portage to xx.xx, bash to latest, portage to latest' ? Alexis. afair the upgrade path was for 1 year? 3.1 is blocked way longer
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:32:26 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it? (this is pure speculation and I didn't check) isn't it the pivot of some upgrade path like 'update bash to 3.1, portage to xx.xx, bash to latest, portage to latest' ? Alexis. afair the upgrade path was for 1 year? 3.1 is blocked way longer but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older upgrade paths?
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older upgrade paths? This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they are now. If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares? There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the packages that aren't being maintained. I don't think we need to debate the merits of the packages that are. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older upgrade paths? This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they are now. If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares? There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the packages that aren't being maintained. I don't think we need to debate the merits of the packages that are. Rich I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate package removals every other day. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On 02/04/13 15:25, hasufell wrote: bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it? you are referring to people who are assuming everything marked stable in portage, is stable, when in reality, only the latest stable is? i've seen bugs like that, mostly closed as invalid by maintainers -- use latest stable some maintainers have removed older copies, some have reverted older copies to ~arch imho, going over the tree and marking older stable copies of packages back to ~arch is just too much work and we should stick to the latest stable is the stable mantra (i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably should not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?)
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
Samuli Suominen wrote: imho, .. we should stick to the latest stable is the stable mantra (i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably should not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?) If it's the agreen-upon way then why not document it? //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older upgrade paths? This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they are now. If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares? There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the packages that aren't being maintained. I don't think we need to debate the merits of the packages that are. Rich I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate package removals every other day. Please take your time to read again. There is no bikeshedding nor debate in: - X is not needed anymore because of reasons R - maybe it's needed for case Y - case Y is not supported - it doesn't hurt to support it I am very well aware that 'case Y' may not even be possible because of tons of other problems and was only pointing out that 'reasons R' were incomplete. It is getting really annoying to have non-technical comments pop in purely technical discussions ;) Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older upgrade paths? This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they are now. If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares? There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the packages that aren't being maintained. I don't think we need to debate the merits of the packages that are. Rich I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate package removals every other day. Please take your time to read again. There is no bikeshedding nor debate in: - X is not needed anymore because of reasons R - maybe it's needed for case Y - case Y is not supported - it doesn't hurt to support it I am very well aware that 'case Y' may not even be possible because of tons of other problems and was only pointing out that 'reasons R' were incomplete. It is getting really annoying to have non-technical comments pop in purely technical discussions ;) Alexis. Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important question why old X is in the tree when new X is stable. Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening a public debate on this? I guess no, because bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: bikeshedding You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important question why old X is in the tree when new X is stable. Nobody besides that part of the thread is arguing about anything like that. If you are upset about the endless debates on treecleaning, then I'm sorry for you but I was not part of any of them and didn't even read them. I believe you are interpreting what I wrote under this perspective: I seriously don't care if bash 3.1 goes away, it's been a while since I've not had it installed on any box. You seem to be thinking the contrary. Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening a public debate on this? I guess no, because bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better. Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete BS ? I didn't. Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On 2 April 2013 15:21, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete BS ? I didn't. Alexis. Apologies. My reply was below yours because it was the last one in the thread. It was not referred to you but to the endless oh lets keep it, oh lets remove it discussion that it is about happen soon ;) -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at how gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few role models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a developer myself. I never expected to walk into this sort of tit for tat mud slinging fest. Carry on or whatever but sheesh... On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 2 April 2013 15:21, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete BS ? I didn't. Alexis. Apologies. My reply was below yours because it was the last one in the thread. It was not referred to you but to the endless oh lets keep it, oh lets remove it discussion that it is about happen soon ;) -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important question why old X is in the tree when new X is stable. Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening a public debate on this? I guess no, because bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better. I am sorry about that. In fact I was about to file a bug, but then decided to take it up here and CC base-system. That was probably a mistake. Thanks to everyone for the comments... or not.
Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important question why old X is in the tree when new X is stable. Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening a public debate on this? I guess no, because bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better. I am sorry about that. In fact I was about to file a bug, but then decided to take it up here and CC base-system. That was probably a mistake. Thanks to everyone for the comments... or not. People who are not interested in this topic should ignore the thread, it's not necessary to reply with the word bikeshedding every time you see a thread that you consider mundane or trivial. I was looking forward to hearing some insights on why bash-3.1 is still around, when I get sick of hearing about it, I'll stop following the thread. -Ben
