On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:17:33 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote: > > In that case adding >=bash-3 to "system" isn't sufficient. I'll > > leave the detailed explanation to Brian, but the only thing you can > > rely on in the ebuild environment is what the used portage version > > has in it's dep strings when it was merged. > > Not that it has much practical relevance given the age of bash-3 > > and things depending on it (don't think anybody is still on bash-2), > > but adding it to "system" wouldn't help those people. > > The details are not important. The main point here is being able to > use bash-3 features. What do we need to get us there? a) don't do anything and assume that everyone is already on bash-3. Not exactly nice but pragmatic. b) add a check in base/profile.bashrc. Should work, doesn't require much effort but is rather nasty c) maybe some EAPI trickery could work too, needs some more thinking d) implement repo-versioning checks in portage. I cooked up a prototype patch for that a while ago (intended to get it into 2.1 originally), but kinda lost motivation as people continued to poke (valid) holes into it and apparently other people didn't agree with the principle behind it. Thread for that is http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01273.html Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- [email protected] mailing list
