On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:24:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:49:44 +1100, Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> said: > >> > >> The advantage of using glastree over pdumpfs is that it is > >> implemented in Perl rather than Ruby (this is in fact the reason > >> that I encountered it in the first place). > > How is that an advantage of use? > Well, for me, were I to try to hack ti to improve it, being in > Perl is distinct advantage since I am far more proficient in Perl > than in Ruby. That's reasonable, but I'm not sure it should have much bearing on whether to package something. We're talking about backup tools, not code libraries for language X; the principal use of the package is as a tool you run, and if it's a good package, you (as a user rather than as a maintainer) shouldn't need to write code in any language, let alone any *particular* language. You as a user don't get to edit the package anyway; if you're customizing the package locally, it doesn't really matter if Debian distributes it. If there are known deficiencies in the packages attempting to fill this niche, *then* it makes sense to start talking about other options (filing bug reports, submitting patches, or writing/ITPing a replacement). And sure, language choice can make a difference in the install size in embedded systems and thus count as a "deficiency", but that doesn't seem to be your point here. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature