On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Willie Wong wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 09:28:57AM +0200, Penguin Lover Rumen Yotov squawked: > > >You're welcome. What I'd like to know is in which universe portage > > > could block bash <puzzled> > > > > > >It just sounds a bit daft, sort of like OpenOffice blocking > > > mutt... > > > > Thinking about it, much of portage is bash-scripts, no. > > Maybe some portage features depend on newer bash functions, just > > guessing. HTH. Rumen > > See bgo#196278 and the bash changelog > http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/COMPAT > In particular point 29 about handling of the % character in parameter > replacement. > > In short, bash changes behaviour (another one is how special > characters in regexp inside a test is dealt with; that one bit me > personally).
OK, that now makes a lot of sense, thanks. > Rather than coding portage to switch function/variable > definitions based on bash version, which would be disgustingly ugly :-) > the portage devs feel that it is > easier to just make it depend on the newer version of bash. Yes, a very sane decision -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
