Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:29:35 -0700 From: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020715182957.GA32690@lizzy.catnook.com> In-Reply-To: <200207151718.g6FHIkof007662@dotar.thuvia.org> References: <200207151718.g6FHIkof007662@dotar.thuvia.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 06:18:46PM +0100, Mark Valentine wrote:
> I can do a heck of a lot with sh/expr/sed/join/etc (and awk when it gets
> serious), and I try to stick to the POSIX.2 subset.
>
> Beyond that there's a perfectly good C compiler.
The fact that it can be done using these tools doesn't mean that they are the
most appropriate choice. Of course many people (especially those who feel
scripting languages are silly toys only to be used for non-real-world
applications) will disagree with this stance. Anyway, I have said what I
wanted to say; I'm not going to argue this any further.
> An individual OS can add whatever frills it wants to the "base" system, but
> it doesn't mean much to me as a proponent of portable software until all the
> platforms I support do likewise.
If portability is at all important, I think we should abandon discussing the
FreeBSD pkg_* tools (and portupgrade) and focus on what the OpenPackages
people are doing.
> > We should pick one that has a reasonable chance of being able to be
> > supported in the base and stick with it.
>
> Well, if we can't handle Tcl in the base system, I doubt much else has a look
> in...
FwIu, Tcl is a bad example because of their internally inconsistent
versioning; new versions are not backward-compatible enough, etc.
> > Perl had build and packaging issues
> > which made it a nightmare to support, fine, so let's pick another one that
> > does a better job than awk/sh/etc.
>
> I'd like to hear you name one that would fit the bill, never mind find a
> concensus...
First we need to decide if we even _want_ a more powerful scripting language
included. It sounds like the current consensus is a resounding NO. However,
applications like portupgrade are much easier written in a scripting language
than using the standard tools. Scripting languages, for all their faults, also
reach a larger audience of potential contributors than the standard tools do.
All imo, of course.
Cheers,
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/
jos@catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer'
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020715182957.GA32690>