Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:04:17 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules ports/shells Makefileports/shells/bash3 ports/shells/bash3/filespatch-config-bot.h ... Message-ID: <411A0B41.9070607@portaone.com> In-Reply-To: <411A0898.3020605@portaone.com> References: <AFE9187C-EB88-11D8-887A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <411A0898.3020605@portaone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
P.S. My recommendation is to kill both bash1 and bash2, repo-copy bash3 into just bash and remove bash3 as well. Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >> Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> >>> Hmmm, why do we have those "bash", "bash2" and "bash3"? There may >>> have been some historical reasons for bash/bash2 separation, but I >>> wonder if they are still valid for the bash2 vs bash3 case. >> >> >> >> I guess bash 3.0 (like most .0 releases) has still some bugs to be >> ironed out, see for example: >> <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2004-August/043003.html>; >> <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2004-August/043006.html>; > > > Well, all software have bugs, if bash maintainers think that it is ready > for release, shouldn't we just agree with their decision? Critical bugs > can be backported into the ports tree if necessary until next stable > release is out. That is how our ports tree works. If somebody wants > previous version he can get it from pre-compiled packages or from cvs repo. > >> Therefore it seems wise to keep bash2 to run scripts until bash3 is >> mature. >> OTOH people might want to use the new bash3 features: >> <http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/bash/NEWS>; >> >> So having bash2 and bash3 is justified. Do you think the directories >> should have different names? > > > I still don't see the reason for having bash2/bash3. We have more than > 10000 ports in the tree, most of them are routinely being updated to the > new major release without creating those ugly new fooN ports. > > Creation of fooN is only justified if it is backward incompatible with > foo{N-1}, while there are still ports in the tree that rely on previous > version. Hypotetical bugs in .0 release does not justify it. > > -Maxim > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?411A0B41.9070607>