Re: standardizing on a language
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:23:30AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 13:26 +0900, Horms wrote:
> > Hi Andres,
> >
> > In the course of using split-config I have noticed a small problem. In
> > some cases it is not safe to remove an option from a config, unless it
> > is removed gloablly. When I say not safe, nothing particularly
> > catastropic happens, but each time you run split-config, you have to
> > wade through a mountain of "this option was removed, what shall i do",
> > messages. To demonstrate this, try split-config on arm/rpc, twice.
>
> Do you mean *removed* or *disabled*? If you mean removed; I changed
> split-config to ignore removals, it should be in svn (unless I only
> committed it to a local bzr repo, or it got lost in the shuffle..). If
> you mean disabled; I haven't seen that problem yet. If it is the case,
> I'll take a look.
I ment removed. I think I have the latest version, from
dists/trunk/scripts, and it had the problem that I described.
> > The patch below should aleviate this problem, by adding an annotation
> > to the debian configs if a option has been removed, but is not
> > removed globablly.
>
> Cool; feel free to commit if you think it's suitable, the worst that can
> happen is I revert it if it's broken.
Ok, will do.
> > Its my first peek into the world or ruby, so please forgive any
> > stupidity on my part.
>
> This brings up something I've been meaning to bring up. Right now,
> we've got a mix of python, ruby, shell, and perl in svn. I'd like to
> standardize on a language. Naturally, we'll still need to have things
> that end up being run on the user's system in perl or shell (shell for
> things that can't use or are too simplistic perl, and perl for other
> things). However, for our standard tools to manage various things
> (configs, control files, etc), we should choose either ruby or python.
> I don't want to see perl used, since I don't think perl is suitable for
> large scripts, and is difficult to maintain. I'm comfortable with
> either ruby or python; I suppose it depends on what others are more
> comfortable with. If necessary, I can rewrite split-config in python;
> I've already started toying around w/ python scripts (see
> scripts/testconfigs).
>
> Preferences? Once we have a common language, we can have a common
> library as well (ages ago, I wrote half a Kconfig parser in racc; that
> seems like it'd be useful for all kinds of scripts, but I'm not going to
> spend any more time on it until we decide whether I should continue in
> racc, or use something python-y).
I don't know ruby or python, and I do know both perl or shell.
I don't mind if we use ruby or python, but I don't have a prefereance
for either.
--
Horms
Reply to: