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

[Maxim Sobolev]

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
> 
> 
>