Am Donnerstag, den 10.03.2011, 14:34 -0500 schrieb James Vega: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote: > > Also, considering we are talking about Python and not, say, my beloved > > OCaml, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that among active Debian > > developers we have nowadays more Python knowledge than Perl knowledge > > (but I'm already regretting starting this potential troll ...). Back to > > numbers, according to [1] already in Debian 4.0 the number of SLOC in > > the archive of Python vs Perl was very close (2.5% vs 2.8%) with a > > strong growing trend for Python. > > > > To conclude with an obvious argument, rewriting useful tools which are > > known to work and which are currently maintained by a derived distro, > > when they are already written in a popular language, doesn't seem to be > > the smartest thing to do to me. > > I completely agree that rewriting the tools isn't a useful effort. I > was more concerned that there had been significant development done on > scripts that were intended to be proposed to devscripts and yet were > intentionally being written in a language that I had previously > expressed to Benjamin wasn't used in devscripts. No Python script comes to my mind that was intended to be proposed to devscripts before the language decision was made. add-patch and edit-patch were written in Shell because they were intended to be proposed to devscripts. *-distro-info (formerly *-release-info) were intended to be a stand-alone package when I initially wrote them. After the package was rejected by the ftp-master, I proposed them to devscripts. A while ago I put it into ubuntu-dev-tools after splitting the script into a library and a frontend, because I wanted to use the library in another Python script in ubuntu-dev-tools (sponsor-patch). > I'm not categorically opposed to having Python scripts in devscripts, > as I do grok Python. My resistance was more due to the process around > the proposed contributions and posing the barrier to acceptance as > purely an added dependency. > > Also, while Benjamin and Stefano have offered to support the potential > new scripts, how does that help with the existing scripts which Benjamin > stated concern about? I was sucked in the ubuntu-dev-tools maintenance due to one script that I wrote. I assume that may happen with devscripts too. > Last we spoke, he wasn't comfortable with Perl, > so while they may support their scripts within devscripts, how much does > it really buy for the devscripts package as a whole? I bough a copy of "Learning Perl" (translated into my native language). That's at least a starting point. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part