Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:43:32 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@telenix.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, John Hein <jhein@timing.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Final sanity pass: xdev Message-ID: <86wsa96r3v.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <49CEC2C0.3020902@telenix.org> (Chuck Robey's message of "Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:37:20 -0400") References: <18875.60334.947446.966085@gromit.timing.com> <20090315.080814.669286040.imp@bsdimp.com> <18877.57878.136116.691250@gromit.timing.com> <20090318.183646.-593221015.imp@bsdimp.com> <18881.38984.133668.539997@gromit.timing.com> <49C19F2A.10406@elischer.org> <18881.42546.640583.971867@gromit.timing.com> <49CEC2C0.3020902@telenix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey <chuckr@telenix.org> writes: > In fact, needing that python26 would really stop this from ever > getting into the base, wouldn't it? Not that I'd mind a good excuse > to get python into our base, but I don't think anyone else would agree > with me. Trust me, you *don't* want python (or any other widely used script language) in base. There's a good reason why we removed Tcl and Perl. Imagine a having Python 2.5 is in base, and needing to run a mission- critical application that requires 2.6. You would have no choice but to install 2.6 from ports, and you would run into all sorts of problems with the two versions interfering with each other, scripts mysteriously failing because they were invoked with the wrong $PATH and therefore the wrong interpreter, code running in the 2.5 interpreter trying to load 2.6 modules, etc. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86wsa96r3v.fsf>