Hello, (As a Tcler I have to comment on this.) On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:36:43 +0200 Didier Raboud <odyx@debian.org> wrote: > 1) "Forget about jimtcl, rely on existing tcl interpreters" > This is mostly "repacking to avoid the embedded jimtcl copy", "no > packaging of it, go on as is done currently; by relying on > existing tcl interpreters. > Pros: easy, straightforward,avoids the binary embedding of jimtcl. > Cons: does not solve the "desktop install needs tcl interpreter". Jimsh is already available, and can be used separately. Also, libjim allows linking dynamically. And also, jim and tcl are a bit different, so it's not always jim-based script is able to run in plain tclsh without additional shims. > 2) "Allow interpretation using separate jimtcl" > This means packaging jimtcl and allow usb-modeswitch to depend on > it (That, plus "repacking to avoid the embedded jimtcl copy") > Pros: relatively easy, avoids the binary embedding of jimtcl. > Cons: replaces the need of the desktop install on a "tcl > interpreter" to "jimtcl". Although it's probably smaller. Already packaged, see above. > 3) "Embed jimtcl using the internal copy" > This means taking the upstream tarball as is. > Pros: small standalone -dispatcher binary. > Cons: code duplication, potential security issues with > out-of-date jimtcl versions, … I see no problems with this, if there's just one or two packages linking against libjim statically. > 4) "Embed jimtcl using a standalone package" > This means packaging jimtcl and do some build-time trickery to > include the jimtcl static library (if possible, only the needed > parts) into usb- -modeswitch-dispatcher. > Pros: small standalone -dispatcher binary, no code duplication. > Cons: binNMU needed at each jimtcl upgrade, static linkeage. Same as above. > 5) "Rewrite the usb-modeswitch-dispatcher in C" > This work has already been done by Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre for the > Ubuntu ackage. > For now, the upstream developer hasn't included this rewrite into > the upstream package (for his own set of reasons). My current > strategy is to avoid as much as possible to diverge from upstream, > hence why it's not in Debian's usb-modeswitch for now. > Pros: No tcl interpreter needed. > Cons: as it's not an upstream effort, it can become out-of-sync > in terms of functionality and bugfixes (and indeed currently is as of > 1.2.0~beta). Stupid and useless. Usb-modeswitch was originally written in C, and later rewritten in Tcl partially, as it was very hard to maintain it. What's wrong with having a minimalist tcl interpreter? It's no bigger than bash, and actually much smaller, and it's faster and doesn't rely on coreutils. > What's your opinion ? Just link it against libjim, statically or dynamically. -- WBR, Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature