cvs commit: CVSROOT modules ports/shells Makefileports/shells/bash3 ports/shells/bash3/filespatch-config-bot.h ...

[Maxim Sobolev]

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