Neil Williams wrote: > From an embedded perspective, we certainly don't want every > configurable package depending on perl at package installation / > upgrade time - that's why we have cdebconf. And if that argument had been used when debconf was being written, we might currently have neither debconf nor cdebconf. It makes sense to have exactly one general-purpose scripting language in standard. More are bloat, and with less, rapid prototyping is not possible. We should not prevent others from using that language for what it's there for. It also makes sense to design interfaces to things prototyped in that language so they can be replaced with a C (or other language) implementation. Config::Model uses perl for the config file parser/writer in a way that doesn't allow doing that. But it does seem likely that packages using it could fall back to current config file handling if Config::Model were not available in an embedded system. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature