From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 11 12:05:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B425816A4CF; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:05:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web.portaone.com (support.portaone.com [195.70.151.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6A843D3F; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:05:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sobomax@portaone.com) Received: from [192.168.0.20] (portacare.portaone.com [195.140.247.242]) (authenticated bits=0) by web.portaone.com (8.12.8p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i7BC4Ox0083138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:04:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sobomax@portaone.com) Message-ID: <411A0B41.9070607@portaone.com> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:04:17 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Porta Software Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (Windows/20040707) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Eikemeier References: <411A0898.3020605@portaone.com> In-Reply-To: <411A0898.3020605@portaone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules ports/shells Makefileports/shells/bash3 ports/shells/bash3/filespatch-config-bot.h ... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:05:55 -0000 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: >> >> > > > 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: >> >> >> 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 > > >