Previously Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Would that make (*shudder*) python mandatory for people who build
> packages? We already have one required crappy language in the
> distribution, and I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to add yet
<advocate>I'm not replacing it with another crappy language
> Perhaps this would be best implemented as a shell script. However, the
> hash stuff would not be quite so simple in shell. How about using
> shoop (*duck*) :).
Get real :). Python is perfect for something like this. (argueably
so it perl, I just happen to prefer python).
> To return to being serious, I think that this script is short enough
> that it's not worth mandating python installation for all developers
> just to use it. It would be trivial to rewrite it in Perl. Can Python
> produce small excecutables that do not depend on pythonic libraries?
No, the other perl scripts will become either python scripts or C
programs in the period of this year. I'll make sure dpkg doesn't
start depending on python, but dpkg-dev will likely become all python.
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \
| firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |