Re: dpkg-scanlibs
>>>>> "WA" == Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl> writes:
AL> Would that make (*shudder*) python mandatory for people who
AL> build packages? We already have one required crappy language in
AL> the distribution, and I'm not convinced that it's a good idea
AL> to add yet another.
WA> No, the other perl scripts will become either python scripts
WA> or C programs in the period of this year. I'll make sure dpkg
WA> doesn't start depending on python, but dpkg-dev will likely
WA> become all python.
So... the criticism that developers would need both language
interpreters still applies. Unless, of course, there's a way to use
dpkg-dev without having dpkg around.
You're the developer, of course, but I'd asking you to rethink. It
doesn't have anything to do with disliking Python -- which I do -- but
as a practical matter it seems kind of extraneous, for other
developers and you yourself.
Is rewriting scripts in Python really the best way to spend your time?
Is introducing first-implementation bugs for scripts key to every
other debianista really worth the disruption?
~ESP
P.S. I'm very happy not to have Python on my boxes -- I think it's the
simpering goody-two-shoes Boy Scout of programming languages. I just
can't write anything in the damn thing -- when I try, my fingers curl
backwards from the keyboard like the Wicked Witch reaching for the
Ruby Slippers. Zzzzzap!
--
Evan Prodromou
evan@debian.org
"I'm the only one that knows how to use them. They're of no use to
you! Give them back to me!"
Reply to: