Re: LSB Spec 1.0 Criticism
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:48:51AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> All of the basic Perl stuff can be done with shell/awk/sed/grep etc.
> That doesn't make those the best way to do it though.
>
> If Perl is a better solution for a particular problem, why not use it?
If it is better then it should be used. That of course depends on your
definition of better for whatever the current problem may be - I think
that for anything which is a (very) standard part of the system the the
extra cruft of something like perl makes it "not better".
> It is a standard system tool and it's not likely that your complete
> system will run without it any time soon.
I would dispute that; standard for a multi-user/server system maybe,
but that's not the only standard in town. And as for what constitutes
a "complete system", that depends on what you're trying to do with it.
As a result of the above, I'd say that whether or not it's really OK
to use perl in package maintenance scripts depends on how likely it is
that your package will be used in a system that really doesn't want
perl - hence *required* packages should not use perl in postinst/whatever.
Definitely not perl-phobic,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Don't worry. Life's too long.
Reply to: