Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Gunnar Wolf]

Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 06:36:11PM -0800]:
> > This is not to day that Python is bad - It has better OO, which Perl
> > unfortunately negletted fromt he very starts. Now, talk about Perl OO 
> > and that's hairy!.
> 
> Actually, Python *also* ignored OO at the beginning.
> 
> It has grafted it on, but since real OO is either Smalltalk or the
> Metaobject Protocol, I'll have to beg off on whether C++ or Perl or
> Python has "better" OO.

Umh... We can talk about "more intuitive". As a Perl fan, I must say
Perl's OO is far from being intuitive. Python's and Ruby's are
excellent. Java's is awkward (as anything in Java is).

But this only adds noice and practically no signal to the discussion
:-)

Greetings,

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Lars Wirzenius]

pe, 2006-02-17 kello 10:58 +0900, Miles Bader kirjoitti:
> "Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > actual topic of the discussion, just shut up.
> 
> Oh get a life.  It's perfectly relevant to talk about the qualities of
> the languages involved.

A comparative discussion about languages might be useful and productive.
A discussion with arguments like "Efficient, perhaps, but _elegant_?!?
HAhahahahah1hahah3$I17-e87"[1] is not such a discussion.

The point of this thread has, at least in theory, been whether Python
(in full or in part) should become an essential package so that various
packaging scripts could be written in it. I suspect that all
constructive arguments have been made already and that the consensus is
"no, not now, maybe later when it's OK to make the set of essential
packages bigger". In other words, status quo continues, the same one
that Debian has had for a decade or so.

Now can we please not perpetrate this thread anymore?

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/02/msg00539.html

-- 
Communication via acronyms is rfs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Miles Bader]

"Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> actual topic of the discussion, just shut up.

Oh get a life.  It's perfectly relevant to talk about the qualities of
the languages involved.

Thanks!

-miles
-- 
=
(^o^;
(()))
*This is the cute octopus virus, please copy it into your sig so it can spread.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The Perl syntax is elegant, efficient and Python's regexp handling is
>> nowhere as intuitive as needed for day-to-day tasks where the poer is
>> needed.
> Efficient, perhaps, but _elegant_?!?  HAhahahahah1hahah3$I17-e87
>
> Perl is an utter mess, with a few nice bits here and there.

I know that religious wars about programming languages are all fun and
give you the warm and fuzzy feeling around the head you love SOOO much,
but we had our share. So unless you have *anything* to say about the
actual topic of the discussion, just shut up.

Thanks!

Marc
-- 
BOFH #15:
temporary routing anomoly


pgpiYRfSRpEUa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> This is not to day that Python is bad - It has better OO, which Perl
> unfortunately negletted fromt he very starts. Now, talk about Perl OO 
> and that's hairy!.

Actually, Python *also* ignored OO at the beginning.

It has grafted it on, but since real OO is either Smalltalk or the
Metaobject Protocol, I'll have to beg off on whether C++ or Perl or
Python has "better" OO.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Miles Bader]

Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Perl syntax is elegant, efficient and Python's regexp handling is
> nowhere as intuitive as needed for day-to-day tasks where the poer is
> needed.

Efficient, perhaps, but _elegant_?!?  HAhahahahah1hahah3$I17-e87

Perl is an utter mess, with a few nice bits here and there.

-miles
-- 
`The suburb is an obsolete and contradictory form of human settlement'


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Jari Aalto]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:19 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
>> And if we followed the the line of argument you are pressing
>>  uncritically, we'd bloat essential/base with gazillions of
>>  interpreters from people too lazy or incompetent to learn the
>>  interpreters already in base.
>
> I prefer to be labeled as incompetent by people like you than to write
> scripts that no one will be able to understand later. Every time I face
> a write-once, never change perl script, the only thing to do is to
> rewrite it. And this isn't a Debian-specific issue.

Don't blame the language[1], but the people. You can as well code unbearable
code in C/C++/Mono/C# (whatever) that no-one can understand. The Perl
syntax is elegant, efficient and Python's regexp handling is nowhere
as intuitive as needed for day-to-day tasks where the poer is needed.

This is not to day that Python is bad - It has better OO, which Perl
unfortunately negletted fromt he very starts. Now, talk about Perl OO 
and that's hairy!.

Jari

[1] Example of Perl coding (do not blame the language):

# 
#
#   DESCRIPTION
#
#   Convert tokens 7m, 2h, 3d into minutes. Die if value is not numeric.
#
#   INPUT PARAMETERS
#
#   none
#
#   RETURN VALUES
#
#   none
#
# 

sub TimeValue ($)
{
my $id = "$LIB.TimeValue";

local ($ARG) = (@ARG);

if ( /^(\d+)([mhd]?)$/ )
{
$ARG = $1;
my $spec = $2  if defined $2;

$debug  and  print "$id: val [$ARG] spec [$spec]\n";

my $factor = 1;
$factor = 60if $spec =~ /h/i;
$factor = 60 *24if $spec =~ /d/i;

$ARG *= $factor;

$debug  and  print "$id: val [$ARG] factor [$factor]\n";
}
else
{
die "$id: Not a recognized time value [$ARG]. Try 2m, 2d, 2h";
}

$ARG;
}


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
>> > that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks
>> > too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we
>> > can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases;
>> > trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.
>> 
>> I'm in that category too.  Perl has always looked crazy to me.
>
> Your unwillingness or inability to learn something new is no reason to
> bloat base unnecessarily.  But we have had this discussion already, and
> it was, AFAICR, settled.  Or are you just down to replying randomly to
> every email you see?

Um, are you aware of the context?  I'm not in favor of putting python
in base, and I'm quite content to leave perl as the one supported
high-level interpreter.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Stephen Gran]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
> > that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks
> > too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we
> > can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases;
> > trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.
> 
> I'm in that category too.  Perl has always looked crazy to me.

Your unwillingness or inability to learn something new is no reason to
bloat base unnecessarily.  But we have had this discussion already, and
it was, AFAICR, settled.  Or are you just down to replying randomly to
every email you see?
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Janusz A. Urbanowicz]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> > simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> > complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> > with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to
> > anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.
> 
> I'm in that category too.  Perl has always looked crazy to me.
> Scheme, anyone?

Amen to that, except for the scheme, python in essential is enough for
me, thank you.

a.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >> >> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
>> >> >>  an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
>> >> >
>> >> > Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand
>> >> > won't help your argumentation.
>> >> 
>> >> How is "jejune" unfair?  How can I predict which words you will or
>> >> won't know?  Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary.  Oh wait, it does.
>> >
>> > Manoj probably thought (as I did, until I ran dict) that jejune
>> > is a French word never used in English.
>> 
>> I find it unlikely to think that Manoj was trying to use a French
>> word.  I think he is simply an accomplished writer, using a carefully
>> chosen ordinary English word, and doesn't know which English words
>> French people normally learn.
>
> Then I made a mistake in who wrote "Deliberate use of words..."

Um, I also think it extremely unlikely that Josselin thought jejune
was a French word...

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >> >> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
> >> >>  an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
> >> >
> >> > Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand
> >> > won't help your argumentation.
> >> 
> >> How is "jejune" unfair?  How can I predict which words you will or
> >> won't know?  Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary.  Oh wait, it does.
> >
> > Manoj probably thought (as I did, until I ran dict) that jejune
> > is a French word never used in English.
> 
> I find it unlikely to think that Manoj was trying to use a French
> word.  I think he is simply an accomplished writer, using a carefully
> chosen ordinary English word, and doesn't know which English words
> French people normally learn.

Then I made a mistake in who wrote "Deliberate use of words..."

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"In politics you can't be true to all of your friends all of the
time."
Perry S. Heath (RNC secretary, 1900-04)

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Lars Wirzenius]

Thomas,

how does responding to a flamey thread that had already died a week and
a half earlier make anything better? (It doesn't even matter that the
point had already been made.)

Debian has a tendency to have many or most of its mailing list
discussion turn into flame wars, and this is bad, because it deters
people with constructive input from participating. If we are to ever
improve the situation the least we can do is to not respond to mails in
flame wars that have already died. Preferably, not responding to flame
mails at all, but let's start with a small step.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
>> >>  an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
>> >
>> > Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand
>> > won't help your argumentation.
>> 
>> How is "jejune" unfair?  How can I predict which words you will or
>> won't know?  Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary.  Oh wait, it does.
>
> Manoj probably thought (as I did, until I ran dict) that jejune
> is a French word never used in English.

I find it unlikely to think that Manoj was trying to use a French
word.  I think he is simply an accomplished writer, using a carefully
chosen ordinary English word, and doesn't know which English words
French people normally learn.

Thomas

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
> >>  an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
> >
> > Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand
> > won't help your argumentation.
> 
> How is "jejune" unfair?  How can I predict which words you will or
> won't know?  Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary.  Oh wait, it does.

Manoj probably thought (as I did, until I ran dict) that jejune
is a French word never used in English.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"In politics, being ridiculous is more damaging than being
extreme."
Roy Hattersley

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
>>  an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
>
> Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand
> won't help your argumentation.

How is "jejune" unfair?  How can I predict which words you will or
won't know?  Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary.  Oh wait, it does.

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to
> anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.

I'm in that category too.  Perl has always looked crazy to me.
Scheme, anyone?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> If people find Perl too hard (feh), and python too ugly,
>  regressive syntactically, and counter intuitive, and want ruby, or
>  scheme, or haskell, what then?

Unless there is a requirement that maintainer scripts have to be
shipped in an ascii-based format (and TTBOMK there is not), Scheme and
Haskell should be fine even now. Build-depend on an appropriate
compiler, compile the script at build time, and ship the binary.

The problem arises only when people want to write infrastructure
scripts in languages that need an interpreter to run.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "... popping pussies into pies
  Wouldn't do in my shop
just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
   and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias]

Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Interestingly the size is highly dependent on the architecture:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-*
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 ballombe ballombe 6960782 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 ballombe ballombe  266065 Jan 30 14:09 postrm-i386
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ strip postrm*
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-*
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 ballombe ballombe 4702544 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 ballombe ballombe  156720 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-i386

Ups, that seems wrong :) I thought that AMD64 maybe wasn't a
registered port in Sarge GHC, but it is.

Anyways, using an hypothetical shared runtime would be too much bloat
for maintainer scripts anyways. A far better approach would be to use
Haskell as a script language, but AFAIK this is not really possible
yet.

Regards,

Emilio


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Bill Allombert]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:26:31AM +0100, Emilio Jes??s Gallego Arias wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when
> > compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability
> 
> I think you're somewhat joking about using Haskell, but your script
> weights:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ ls -lh a.out
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 egallego egallego 182K 2006-01-30 00:19 a.out
> 
> This is including all the Haskell runtime. Using a shared runtime
> would be the optimal solution, as the compiled module is about 9Kb
> (without stripping):

Interestingly the size is highly dependent on the architecture:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-*
-rwxr-xr-x  1 ballombe ballombe 6960782 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64
-rwxr-xr-x  1 ballombe ballombe  266065 Jan 30 14:09 postrm-i386
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ strip postrm*
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-*
-rwxr-xr-x  1 ballombe ballombe 4702544 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64
-rwxr-xr-x  1 ballombe ballombe  156720 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-i386

(This is sarge ghc6)

> However, AFAIK GHC doesn't support sharing the runtime.

IIRC, The FAQ says the runtime ABI is too fragile to be practical
to have a shared runtime.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> > > some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> > > python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> > > implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
> > > written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.
> > 
> > What's this "wouldn't be accepted" nonsense?  Are you seriously suggesting
> > that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the
> > ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python?
> 
> Yes, this is because all dependencies of a package must be of equal or
> higher priority. Having adduser depending on python would imply to
> increase the priority of python.
> 
> > > Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a
> > > waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good
> > > enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the
> > > applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle.
> > 
> > They're refusing it on the principle of "the cost/benefit ratio sucks".  Not
> > a bad principle, as things go.
> 
> The arguments I've heard most are not about that ratio. They're only
> about "but you can do it in perl!".

No, that's not true. You have read it that way, that's right; but that's
an entirely different matter altogether.

I haven't seen _anyone_ say "but it's possible to do in perl, so why
bother?" What I _have_ seen, is many people say "we have perl in base
already, adding python would result in base seriously growing in size,
so what's the benefit?", which is something entirely different.

The only reaction from you that I've seen thus far is "but Python is
much better than Perl!", which obviously attracts some knee-jerk
reactions. That doesn't mean there's no reasonable reason for rejecting
the idea of Python in base at this point in time.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Matthew Palmer]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> > > some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> > > python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> > > implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
> > > written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.
> > 
> > What's this "wouldn't be accepted" nonsense?  Are you seriously suggesting
> > that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the
> > ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python?
> 
> Yes, this is because all dependencies of a package must be of equal or
> higher priority. Having adduser depending on python would imply to
> increase the priority of python.

Call it 'adduser-python' then.  Show that it's better (oh, for an objective
criterion) and it'll get switched.  Not exactly rocket science.  You're
going to have to do that anyway, even *if* python is essential, because
nobody, even the most die-hard Pythonista, would be dumb enough to call for
tossing out the current adduser implementation for a Python one until the
new one had undergone some fairly massive testing in production.

> > > Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a
> > > waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good
> > > enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the
> > > applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle.
> > 
> > They're refusing it on the principle of "the cost/benefit ratio sucks".  Not
> > a bad principle, as things go.
> 
> The arguments I've heard most are not about that ratio.

You made the argument.

- Matt

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> > some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> > python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> > implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
> > written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.
> 
> What's this "wouldn't be accepted" nonsense?  Are you seriously suggesting
> that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the
> ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python?

Yes, this is because all dependencies of a package must be of equal or
higher priority. Having adduser depending on python would imply to
increase the priority of python.

> > Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a
> > waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good
> > enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the
> > applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle.
> 
> They're refusing it on the principle of "the cost/benefit ratio sucks".  Not
> a bad principle, as things go.

The arguments I've heard most are not about that ratio. They're only
about "but you can do it in perl!".
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Ron Johnson]

On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 11:18 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either.
> >
> > Nack. Even following the synthetic benchmarks on
> > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/, they are quite comparable,
> > especially when looking at other candidates:
> > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all〈=perl&lang2=ruby
> 
> For great fun, look at Perl vs. Haskell GHC.

Let's implement the boot scripts in GForth!!!
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=perl&lang2=gforth

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"He was about as useful in a crisis as a sheep."
Dorothy Eden

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Miles Bader]

Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either.
>
> Nack. Even following the synthetic benchmarks on
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/, they are quite comparable,
> especially when looking at other candidates:
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=perl&lang2=ruby

For great fun, look at Perl vs. Haskell GHC.

-miles
-- 
o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by
  Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias]

Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when
> compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability

I think you're somewhat joking about using Haskell, but your script
weights:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ ls -lh a.out
-rwxr-xr-x 1 egallego egallego 182K 2006-01-30 00:19 a.out

This is including all the Haskell runtime. Using a shared runtime
would be the optimal solution, as the compiled module is about 9Kb
(without stripping):

-rw-r--r-- 1 egallego egallego 9652 2006-01-30 00:19 Main.o

and stripped:

-rw-r--r-- 1 egallego egallego 3584 2006-01-30 00:25 Main.o

However, AFAIK GHC doesn't support sharing the runtime.

Regards,

Emilio


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:17:13AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 17:01 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> > [Josselin Mouette]
> > > Because python and ruby have similar features
> > 
> > Same with perl and python.
> 
> Great. I guess you're going to second the upcoming GR that will state
> that Pi=3 ?

Hey, you were the one who started the mud-slinging.  Ruby and Python are
miles apart as languages (and thank $DEITY for that).

- Matt

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
> written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.

What's this "wouldn't be accepted" nonsense?  Are you seriously suggesting
that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the
ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python?

> Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a
> waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good
> enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the
> applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle.

They're refusing it on the principle of "the cost/benefit ratio sucks".  Not
a bad principle, as things go.  Spend some time enhancing the benefit side
of the equation, and less time screaming that people are meanies, and your
language-of-choice-for-today might just have a hope of making it in.

- Matt
Bannerwaver for "Ruby in Essential" because it'd be cool.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:55:29 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 10:42 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit
> :
>> I can see your logic skillz are on par with your language
>> skillz. Russ said it best already: once a language as heen
>> accepted, there is a measure of cost of change. It is not a my
>> language is bigger than your language -- it is a matter of doing a
>> cost benefit analysis.
>> 
>> And yes, I do believe if someone can't handle the technical tasks
>> of Debian package management and systems integration (which
>> includes sticking to the current policy, or providing technical
>> rationale for why policy must be modified), they should indeed
>> leave package management to those who can. Not everyone needs to be
>> a DD.

> This is enough.

So you want people who can not handle the technical tasks of
 Debian package management and systems integration  to continue to
 delude themselves and short change the users by sticking to their
 guns?

> I don't expect to get any apologies on this list, but I won't
> discuss anymore with people whose only arguments are insults.

My arguments weren't _wholly_ insults.

> I'm not here to deal with your ego issues.

Seems to me I am not the one with a bruised ego here.

manoj

-- 
I'm not sure whether that's actually useful... Larry Wall in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:51:44PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Or maybe it's just there's nothing to argue about for haskell and
> scheme. Show me an administration script written in haskell or scheme,
> and we can include the language in the discussion.

Actually I would advocate to rewrite _all_ the maintainers scripts in
haskell. There are absolutly critical to the correction operation of
Debian systems and we cannot rely on so brittle a language than POSIX sh.

Actually, since haskell can be compiled to native code, we don't even need
to move any haskell packages to base.

Look how cleanly the following postrm script implement policy 6.4:

module Main where
import System
import IO
import Directory

main = getArgs >>= postrm

postrm ["remove"]= exitWith ExitSuccess
postrm ["purge"] = try (removeFile 
"/etc/foobar.conf")
postrm ["upgrade", new_version ] = exitWith ExitSuccess
postrm ["failed-upgrade", old_version ]  = exitWith ExitSuccess
postrm ["abort-install"] = exitWith ExitSuccess
postrm ["abort-install", old_version]= exitWith ExitSuccess
postrm ["abort-upgrade", old_version]= exitWith ExitSuccess
postrm ["disappear", overwriter, overwriter_version] = exitWith ExitSuccess

postrm bad_command_line = error ("Maintainer script called with unknown 
arguments"
 ++ (foldl (\x -> \y ->x++" "++y) "" 
bad_command_line))

The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when
compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability
and maintainability that this would give to Debian far outweight the
extra disk usage.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.

PS: May I be allowed to remember that perl-base was introduced mainly for the
purpose of replacing awk scripts and other awk+sed+sh mix ?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 10:42 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> I can see your logic skillz are on par with your language
>  skillz. Russ said it best already: once a language as heen accepted,
>  there is a measure of cost of change. It is not a my language is
>  bigger than your language -- it is a matter of doing a cost benefit
>  analysis.
> 
> And yes, I do believe if someone can't handle the technical
>  tasks of Debian package management and systems integration (which
>  includes sticking to the current policy, or providing technical
>  rationale for why policy must be modified), they should indeed leave
>  package management to those who can. Not everyone needs to be a DD.

This is enough.

I don't expect to get any apologies on this list, but I won't discuss
anymore with people whose only arguments are insults. I'm not here to
deal with your ego issues.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Russ Allbery]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
> written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.

Well, if those people don't mind their policies, now there's Ubuntu with
python in essential.  That work, if good, won't go to waste even if Debian
doesn't want it.  There's a testing ground in Ubuntu for rewriting some
core component in Python and making it much better, so much better that we
all gasp in appreciation and want it in Debian too.

Not all rewrites are improvements, so I don't get particularly excited
about people's plans to rewrite something and make it so much better.  Few
rewrites that are started actually finish.  The few that are often
introduce lots of new bugs in exchange for the old, known, worked-around
bugs.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:54:17 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 09:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit
> :
>> > There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to
>> > rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or
>> > adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the
>> > beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the
>> > language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working
>> > on it.
>> 
>> Unless there is a technical rationale for writing things in a new
>> language (no, I'm too lazy to learn the old one is not good
>> enough), this is not a bad thing.

> Oh, great. Preventing evolutions from happening, just because some
> people judge their language to be able to replace anything another
> language can do, this must be a good thing.

If asking for a technical rationale is way too much for you, I
 am glad you are not in charge. Gratuitous, whimsical, random changes
 in critical infrastructure are not laudable, and not something to
 emulate.

> We'd better let those skilled people make all evolutions happen, of
> course they have all the time to rewrite all contributions in their
> TRUE and ONLY language.

I can see your logic skillz are on par with your language
 skillz. Russ said it best already: once a language as heen accepted,
 there is a measure of cost of change. It is not a my language is
 bigger than your language -- it is a matter of doing a cost benefit
 analysis.

And yes, I do believe if someone can't handle the technical
 tasks of Debian package management and systems integration (which
 includes sticking to the current policy, or providing technical
 rationale for why policy must be modified), they should indeed leave
 package management to those who can. Not everyone needs to be a DD.

manoj

-- 
Unix: Some say the learning curve is steep, but you only have to climb
it once. Karl Lehenbauer
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
> Oh, great. Preventing evolutions from happening, just because some
> people judge their language to be able to replace anything another
> language can do, this must be a good thing. We'd better let those
> skilled people make all evolutions happen, of course they have all the
> time to rewrite all contributions in their TRUE and ONLY language.

It seems to me you're entirely missing the point and being needlessly
argumentative.  Essential needs to be kept small, so we want to minimize
the number of things in it.  There is already a status quo - we have
perl, and several scripts written in perl that are fairly important.  

If you want python added, you'll need to come up with a fairly
convincing argument for why Essential should get bigger.  If you want to
replace perl, you'll need to come up with a fairly convincing argument
for why people should do all the work of rewriting the existing code.

I've got nothing against python (except the usual revulsion for a
language where whitespace is significant), but you're really going to
need to do better than whining about being oppressed to get python into
Essential.

Now, do you actually have arguments for why Essential should get bigger
except that you don't happen to like perl?
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 09:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> > some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> > python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> > implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
> > written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.
> 
> Unless there is a technical rationale for writing things in a
>  new language (no, I'm too lazy to learn the old one is not good
>  enough), this is not a bad thing.

Oh, great. Preventing evolutions from happening, just because some
people judge their language to be able to replace anything another
language can do, this must be a good thing. We'd better let those
skilled people make all evolutions happen, of course they have all the
time to rewrite all contributions in their TRUE and ONLY language.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:38:32 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Of course it's not hard to look up a word in the dictionary. But it
> raises arbitrarily the barrier for comprehension.

It is hard to know a priori how much to lower ones language
 to -- should one stick to "Look, Jane, look. See Spot. See Spot run."?

> After all, I could answer in French. It's not that hard to
> translate.

While this obviously has not made an impression on you, the
 official language of the lists is English.

> When people make the effort to speak your native language, you can
> make an effort as well to make yourself easily understandable.

Whose native tongue, Kemo Sabe? मेरा नाम “मनोज श्रिवास्तव” है|


manoj
 amused to think th language he learned fourth is thought to be his
 native tongue
-- 
There's no use in having a dog and doing your own barking.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:58:05 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 20:42 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in
>> the base system and cannot be currently because Python isn't
>> included?  Be specific.
>> 
>> A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be
>> the way that Python would enter base; without that, I think this
>> discussion is largely a waste of time and an invitation to back
>> into argumentative corners that can only result in hurt feelings.

> There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
> written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.

Unless there is a technical rationale for writing things in a
 new language (no, I'm too lazy to learn the old one is not good
 enough), this is not a bad thing.

> Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be
> a waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a
> good enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the
> applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle.

The probability of such a package coming up which would make
 the cost benefit analysis worth it is pretty low. In my opinion, of
 course.

manoj
-- 
"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show." Jeff G. Bone
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 20:42 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in the base
> system and cannot be currently because Python isn't included?  Be
> specific.
> 
> A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the way
> that Python would enter base; without that, I think this discussion is
> largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into argumentative
> corners that can only result in hurt feelings.

There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.

Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a
waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good
enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the
applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 11:07 +0100, Eduard Bloch a écrit :
> > You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't want to
> > waste their time with an inefficient language, you label them as
> > incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than learning
> > perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from people who
> > don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build the best OS
> > out there - only the best perl OS.
> 
> Broken logics. You do accept every contribution even if you know that
> patch does not comply with your quality standards? 

I can see if the patch complies with my quality standards by looking at
the patch. Not by asking the contributor if he knows an unrelated
programming language.

> And a language
> (itself) is inefficient because _you_ don't want to learn it?

It is inefficient *for me*.

From the very beginning, you've been insulting the wrong person. After
all, I *do* know perl, I even contributed some perl code in Debian. I
know perl enough to know that:
  * I will never be able to write a perl script in a time comparable
to that of writing a similar python script.
  * I won't be able to understand a random perl script written with
a programming style I'm not accustomed to in a reasonable amount
of time.
This is enough for making this language inefficient for me. It's much
more efficient to ask for help from people more knowledgeable with this
language and to spend my time with things I can enjoy hacking.

> And you can compare the efficiency without knowing how a _good_
> implementation in the other language may look like?

When the implementation already exists, the measurement for efficiency
differs. You have to compare the time needed to hack the existing
implementation to the time needed to rewrite it from scratch.

> > If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base
> > system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to
> > support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist, because
> > these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks.
> 
> Heh, now your change your line of argumentation just to make it look
> less foolish. Congratulations.

Or maybe it's just there's nothing to argue about for haskell and
scheme. Show me an administration script written in haskell or scheme,
and we can include the language in the discussion.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 03:14 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> (Josselin, you might be gratified to hear that I, a native speaker,
> wasn't sure of the meaning of 'jejune' either.  He's right, though,
> it's not hard to look it up.)

Of course it's not hard to look up a word in the dictionary. But it
raises arbitrarily the barrier for comprehension.

After all, I could answer in French. It's not that hard to translate. 

When people make the effort to speak your native language, you can make
an effort as well to make yourself easily understandable.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Mike Hommey [Thu, Jan 26 2006, 09:46:26PM]:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:12:35PM +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 21:52 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL 
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
> > > > they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
> > > > example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
> > > > (...)
> > > 
> > > Boot speed and python does not really sound a match...
> > 
> > Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task.
> 
> Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either.

Nack. Even following the synthetic benchmarks on
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/, they are quite comparable,
especially when looking at other candidates:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=perl&lang2=ruby
Especially the startup time is much higher with Python so I wonder why
people want to use it for many small maintainer scripts.

The only improvement comes with use of Python Psycho which is IIRC still
experimental and non-portable.

Eduard.
-- 
Everything is illusion. Constructs of language, light, metaphor; nothing
is real.  -- Babylon 5, Season 4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Josselin Mouette [Sun, Jan 29 2006, 04:44:32AM]:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
> > > that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks
> > > too complex and cryptic to us.
> > 
> > I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming
> >  to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and
> >  ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people,
> >  perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications?
> 
> You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't want to
> waste their time with an inefficient language, you label them as
> incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than learning
> perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from people who
> don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build the best OS
> out there - only the best perl OS.

Broken logics. You do accept every contribution even if you know that
patch does not comply with your quality standards? And a language
(itself) is inefficient because _you_ don't want to learn it?
And you can compare the efficiency without knowing how a _good_
implementation in the other language may look like?

> If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base
> system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to
> support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist, because
> these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks.

Heh, now your change your line of argumentation just to make it look
less foolish. Congratulations.

Eduard.
-- 
 Hey! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ist richtig schlimm
 Da kriegt man, wenn man "Hallo" sagt, als Antwort schon rtfm!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Josselin Mouette [Sun, Jan 29 2006, 04:27:06AM]:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:21 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > > This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
> > > specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for
> > > anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't
> > > know about.
> > 
> > Perl _maniacs_, eh? Gratuitous insults. Hmm. To descend to
> >  your level, only python morons would find a  style straight jacket
> >  "better".
> 
> Maybe you think that all perl developers are perl maniacs, but this is
> not what I said.

That's your vocabulary that matters and your style of picking up extreme
cases to substantiate a crazy idea. Unfortunately too many people tend
to repeat that "syntax corset makes your code understandable" story
while they confuse different problems in human code understanding.

Eduard.
-- 
Wer wirklich noch einen 4.x-Browser benutzt, dem kann leider nicht mehr
geholfen werden. Die haben soviele Sicherheitsloecher, da koennten wir per
www.linuxtag.org, Exploit und etwas Scriptmagic einen neuen Browser von
Remote installieren.
  // Michael Kleinhenz, lt2k-ml

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Lars Wirzenius]

su, 2006-01-29 kello 04:35 +0100, Josselin Mouette kirjoitti:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
> >  an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
> 
> Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand
> won't help your argumentation.

Language war bad. Bad. Bad language war. Bad, bad, bad. Language war:
bad. No language war. No, no, no. No bad language war. Stop language
war. Stop - language - war. Stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. Bad
language war stop. Now. Stop bad language war now.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Peter Samuelson]

[Manoj Srivastava]
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:35:08 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> said: 
> > Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot
> > understand won't help your argumentation.
> 
> I beg your pardon. I was expecting a modicum of competence, obviously
> my trust of such was misplaced.

I agree that whining about the hard word is out of place - but so is
pointing this out in such an insulting manner.

(Josselin, you might be gratified to hear that I, a native speaker,
wasn't sure of the meaning of 'jejune' either.  He's right, though,
it's not hard to look it up.)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:42:09 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the
>> base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first
>> one to support that inclusion.

> Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in
> the base system and cannot be currently because Python isn't
> included?  Be specific.

And provide some rationale why these scripts can't be
 rewritten in sh or Perl (or CDBS :).

> A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the
> way that Python would enter base; without that, I think this
> discussion is largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into
> argumentative corners that can only result in hurt feelings.

A killer application that is required by dpkg (which was the
 original reason for essential) or is needed to install other packages
 (the old meaning of base).

Such beasts are often evolutionary, not revolutionary.

> Personally, I write both Perl and Python, and if some fantastic core
> component of Debian ended up being written in Objective CAML, I
> think that would be a great excuse to learn Objective CAML.  But
> bickering over which language is best isn't going to get us
> anywhere.


> There's a pure resource tradeoff involved, and any language,
> including Perl, has to pass a cost/benefit analysis that involves
> real applications we want to run in base.  Obviously, once the
> language is already in base and is already being used, the
> cost/benefit analysis reverses and one instead starts looking at the
> cost of removing it.  The inherent merits of the language rarely end
> up being a decisive factor.

hear, hear.

manoj
-- 
BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing. Seymour
Papert
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:44:32 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers
>> > here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because
>> > perl looks too complex and cryptic to us.
>> 
>> I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming to
>> be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and
>> ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for
>> people, perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications?

> You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't
> want to waste their time with an inefficient language, you label
> them as incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than
> learning perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from
> people who don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build
> the best OS out there - only the best perl OS.

The project has elected to use a high level language as
 essential. It is not necesarrily a language that is everyone's
 favourite, but it is adequate to the task. You elected to contribute
 to Debian, instead of Ubuntu, which prefers python (if I understand
 correctly). It seems like part of the skills you need to develop is
 learning to package debian -packages using the conventions of the
 project.

You do not _have_ to use Perl -- you can use any language you
 want, in every maintainer script -- as long as you pre-depend on that
 language.

Not learning the packaging mechanism , or the high level
 language selected as essential -- is just laziness.

>> Heck no. We definitely need ruby, for the whole OO thang that
>> python messed up ;). And while we are talking OO, how about a
>> teensy smalltalk interpreter?
>> 
>> Or how about some haskell, so we can _prove_ maintainer scripts are
>> correct? I mean, surely we can make a strong case for haskell,
>> which is a different kinda beast than procedural languages.
>> 
>> Or Scheme. Oooh, scheme.

> Thank you, I too can provide a list of languages. What are you
> trying to prove?

I wondered if I would have to dot the i's and cross the t's.
 Since we are talking about adding to the languages whose interpreters
 are included in Essential packages, and the only argument presented
 seems to be "I am too lazy to learnperl, or Perl is too hard for me",
 one needs to consider the subjective opiniuons of people who would
 much rather not touch the nightmare that is python with a 10 foot
 pole, and would much prefer the sanity of ruby, haskell, smalltalk,
 or sheme.

Since there are few maintainer scripts in any of these
 languages, and none without pre-depends, I fail to see what makes
 python stand out (apart from sheer horror of progamming in it, of
 course ;-).

> If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the
> base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first
> one to support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist,
> because these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks.

No scripts using python exist either. Even in Ubuntu.

manoj
-- 
A good workman is known by his tools.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:35:08 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an
>> exercise in jejune mud slinging.

> Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot
> understand won't help your argumentation.

I beg your pardon. I was expecting a modicum of competence,
 obviously my trust of such was misplaced. See definition 3 from The
 Collaborative International Dictionary of English.

I also strongly advice you to look up the package dict.

manoj


__> dict jejune
4 definitions found

>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

  Jejune \Je*june"\, a. [L. jejunus fasting, hungry, dry, barren,
 scanty; of unknown origin.]
 [1913 Webster]
 1. Lacking matter; empty; void of substance.
[1913 Webster]
  
 2. Void of interest; barren; meager; dry; as, a jejune
narrative.
  
 3. Juvenile; childish; immature.
[PJC]
  
 4. Lacking nutritional value.
[PJC] - {Je*june"ly}, adv. -- {Je*june"ness}, n. --Bacon.
[1913 Webster]

>From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:

  jejune
  adj 1: lacking in nutritive value; "the jejune diets of the very
 poor" [syn: {insubstantial}]
  2: displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; "adolescent
 insecurity"; "jejune responses to our problems"; "their
 behavior was juvenile"; "puerile jokes" [syn:
 {adolescent}, {juvenile}, {puerile}]
  3: lacking interest or significance; "an insipid personality";
 "jejune novel" [syn: {insipid}]

>From English-Hindi Freedict Dictionary [fd-eng-hin]:

  jejune 
  
  1. बहà¥à¤¤~सà¥à¤§à¤¾
   "Ram is a jejune boy."
  2. भà¥à¤à¤¦à¥
   "Ram is a stupid and jejune boy."

>From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thesaurus]:

  208 Moby Thesaurus words for "jejune":
 Lenten, Spartan, abstemious, acarpous, ankle-deep, arid, ascetic,
 attenuated, austere, banal, barren, blah, bland, blank, bloodless,
 cadaverous, celibate, characterless, childless, cold, colorless,
 corpselike, cursory, dead, depthless, desert, desolate, dilute,
 diluted, dismal, draggy, drained, drearisome, dreary, dried-up,
 dry, dryasdust, dull, dusty, dwarfed, dwarfish, effete,
 elephantine, emacerated, emaciate, emaciated, empty, empty-headed,
 empty-minded, empty-pated, empty-skulled, epidermal, etiolated,
 exhausted, exiguous, fade, fallow, flat, flavorless, frugal,
 fruitless, gaunt, gelded, gruelly, haggard, heavy, ho-hum, hollow,
 hollow-eyed, impotent, impoverished, inane, indifferent,
 ineffectual, inexcitable, infecund, infertile, innocuous, insipid,
 issueless, knee-deep, leached, leaden, lean, lifeless, light,
 limited, low-spirited, marantic, marasmic, meager, mean,
 menopausal, mild, milk-and-water, miserly, namby-pamby, narrow,
 niggardly, nonfertile, nonproducing, nonproductive, nonprolific,
 not deep, on the surface, pale, pallid, paltry, pappy,
 parsimonious, peaked, peaky, pedestrian, pinched, plodding,
 pointless, poky, ponderous, poor, pulpy, puny, rattlebrained,
 rattleheaded, sapless, savorless, scant, scanty, scatterbrained,
 scrawny, scrimp, scrimpy, shallow, shallow-rooted, shoal,
 shriveled, sine prole, skeletal, skimp, skimpy, skin-deep, slender,
 slight, slim, slow, small, solemn, spare, sparing, spiceless,
 spiritless, stale, starvation, starved, starveling, sterile, stiff,
 stingy, stinted, stodgy, straitened, stuffy, stunted, subsistence,
 sucked dry, superficial, surface, tabetic, tabid, tasteless,
 tedious, teemless, tenuous, thin, trivial, uncultivated, underfed,
 undernourished, unfertile, unflavored, unfruitful, unlively,
 unnourishing, unnutritious, unplowed, unproductive, unprofound,
 unprolific, unsavory, unsown, untilled, vacant, vacuous, vapid,
 virgin, washy, waste, wasted, watered, watered-down, watery, weak,
 weazeny, wishy-washy, withered, without issue, wizened, wooden,
 wraithlike
  

-- 
None love the bearer of bad news. Sophocles
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:31:58 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:19 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> And if we followed the the line of argument you are pressing
>> uncritically, we'd bloat essential/base with gazillions of
>> interpreters from people too lazy or incompetent to learn the
>> interpreters already in base.

> I prefer to be labeled as incompetent by people like you than to
> write scripts that no one will be able to understand later.

If the only scripts you can write are write once, then the
 label sticks.

> Every time I face a write-once, never change perl script, the only
> thing to do is to rewrite it. And this isn't a Debian-specific
> issue.

The only thing to do, of course, is to rewrite it
 _clearly_. The language of implementation of obfuscation is not
 limited to Perl and python.

manoj

-- 
belief, n: Something you do not believe.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Russ Allbery]

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base
> system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to
> support that inclusion.

Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in the base
system and cannot be currently because Python isn't included?  Be
specific.

A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the way
that Python would enter base; without that, I think this discussion is
largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into argumentative
corners that can only result in hurt feelings.  Personally, I write both
Perl and Python, and if some fantastic core component of Debian ended up
being written in Objective CAML, I think that would be a great excuse to
learn Objective CAML.  But bickering over which language is best isn't
going to get us anywhere.

There's a pure resource tradeoff involved, and any language, including
Perl, has to pass a cost/benefit analysis that involves real applications
we want to run in base.  Obviously, once the language is already in base
and is already being used, the cost/benefit analysis reverses and one
instead starts looking at the cost of removing it.  The inherent merits of
the language rarely end up being a decisive factor.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
> > that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks
> > too complex and cryptic to us.
> 
> I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming
>  to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and
>  ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people,
>  perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications?

You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't want to
waste their time with an inefficient language, you label them as
incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than learning
perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from people who
don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build the best OS
out there - only the best perl OS.

>   Heck no. We definitely need ruby, for the whole OO thang that
>  python messed up ;). And while we are talking OO, how about a teensy
>  smalltalk interpreter?
> 
> Or how about some haskell, so we can _prove_ maintainer
>  scripts are correct? I mean, surely we can make a strong case for
>  haskell, which is a different kinda beast than procedural languages.
> 
> Or Scheme. Oooh, scheme.

Thank you, I too can provide a list of languages. What are you trying to
prove?

If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base
system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to
support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist, because
these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
>  an exercise in jejune mud slinging.

Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand
won't help your argumentation.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:19 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> And if we followed the the line of argument you are pressing
>  uncritically, we'd bloat essential/base with gazillions of
>  interpreters from people too lazy or incompetent to learn the
>  interpreters already in base.

I prefer to be labeled as incompetent by people like you than to write
scripts that no one will be able to understand later. Every time I face
a write-once, never change perl script, the only thing to do is to
rewrite it. And this isn't a Debian-specific issue.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:21 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
> > specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for
> > anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't
> > know about.
> 
> Perl _maniacs_, eh? Gratuitous insults. Hmm. To descend to
>  your level, only python morons would find a  style straight jacket
>  "better".

Maybe you think that all perl developers are perl maniacs, but this is
not what I said.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:17:43 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit
> :
>> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?  Yes, I hate
>> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
>> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
>> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.

> Or we can accept python for the same reasons that perl was accepted:
> it is suitable, enough people like to write scripts in it, and many
> people expect to be able to use it.

We needed _a_ high level language. We have one. There is no
 need to bloat essential package lists by adding everybodies favourite
 language du jour. 

> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
> that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks
> too complex and cryptic to us.

I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming
 to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and
 ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people,
 perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications?

> Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting
> needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will
> happen later is pure speculation.

Heck no. We definitely need ruby, for the whole OO thang that
 python messed up ;). And while we are talking OO, how about a teensy
 smalltalk interpreter?

Or how about some haskell, so we can _prove_ maintainer
 scripts are correct? I mean, surely we can make a strong case for
 haskell, which is a different kinda beast than procedural languages.

Or Scheme. Oooh, scheme.

manoj
-- 
Like punning, programming is a play on words.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:42:47 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 20:04 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit :
>> On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and
>> tools that a Debian developer should know to be effective.

> Despite the days of nightmare I have spent on perl, I couldn't claim
> to be "effective" with perl. When I have an issue with a perl script
> in Debian, I call for help from another developer

I can see how you find developing challenging, then.

> When there are hundreds of developers, you can always find one with
> the skills and some time to help. This is true the other way round:
> there are now enough developers skilled with python, so that a
> developer with a python issue can call for help.

Ruby. Scheme. Haskell. (wish java were free). Smalltalk. Ada?

> Perl is a completely absurd and counter-intuitive language.

But python is worse, nyah nyah.

God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
 an exercise in jejune mud slinging.

> When you're used to clear and strict types, you have to wonder how
> that dumb software will interpret it and what will happen at each
> line of code.  Writing code in perl is a pain that takes me 10 times
> longer than writing it in python - for the things I manage to
> write. I'm not event thinking about understanding most perl scripts
> out there: the TIMTOWTDI philosophy leads to as many kinds of
> programming as there are perl programmers. In other words: you
> cannot only learn perl, you have to think in perl. Which is a very
> hard task for people used to structured languages.

I guess it is mud slinging.


manoj
 too tired to sling mud no mo'
-- 
Tis man's perdition to be safe, when for the truth he ought to die.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:14:45 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
>> > Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is
>> > more widely spread and used.
>> 
>> I disagree. Ruby has one feature that python does not have: Ruby
>> does not require you to use a certain specific coding style.

> This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
> specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for
> anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't
> know about.

Perl _maniacs_, eh? Gratuitous insults. Hmm. To descend to
 your level, only python morons would find a  style straight jacket
 "better".

manoj
-- 
Don't believe everything you hear or anything you say.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 02:13:57 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

>> Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along
>> who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and
>> we can start this all over from the start again.

> I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if
> people were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming
> COBOL on VMS.

And if we followed the the line of argument you are pressing
 uncritically, we'd bloat essential/base with gazillions of
 interpreters from people too lazy or incompetent to learn the
 interpreters already in base.

If people find Perl too hard (feh), and python too ugly,
 regressive syntactically, and counter intuitive, and want ruby, or
 scheme, or haskell, what then?


manoj
-- 
What we Are is God's gift to us. What we Become is our gift to God.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 17:01 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> [Josselin Mouette]
> > Because python and ruby have similar features
> 
> Same with perl and python.

Great. I guess you're going to second the upcoming GR that will state
that Pi=3 ?
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Peter Samuelson]

[Josselin Mouette]
> Because python and ruby have similar features

Same with perl and python.

> and the former is more widely spread and used.

Same with perl and python.

Actually these days perl and python are fairly evenly split, but even
so, there's no need for both.  Of 63 config scripts on my system, only
4 are in perl.  Of 589 postrm scripts, only 2 are in perl, and they're
both Linux kernel images.  Apparently good old POSIX shell is good
enough for the vast majority of packages.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
> > > specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone
> > > knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about.
> > 
> > Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better,
> > because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me.
> 
> Which is globally counterproductive.

Whatever. My point was that your perfect language isn't necessarily my
perfect language; and while I understand your reasons for wanting Python
to be part of base, it would be just asking for a Ruby or Haskell or
lisp or whatnot lover to ask for their language of choice to be part of
base as well.

While I don't like the bloat it brings with it, I can see the point of
having a scripting language in base; after all, some things can be coded
easier in a scripting language, and bash has nowhere near enough
features to fill that purpose. But one scripting language is already
more than enough; adding more would be crossing the line between
'sensible compromise' and 'bloat'.

I'm sorry perl scares you away; but that's hardly an argument for
wanting to have more bloat in base.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 19:27 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
> > > specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone
> > > knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about.
> > 
> > Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better,
> > because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me.
> 
> Which is globally counterproductive. When you're in a project, you have
> to deal with the fact other people are working on it as well. That's why
> large projects like Linux or GNOME require a specific coding style for
> their contributions. For python-based projects, this isn't even
> necessary, as most if not all python programmers already use the same
> coding style.



Have a look inside the standard library sometime, if you want to get a
feeling for just how many styles of programming python programmers use. 

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
> > specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone
> > knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about.
> 
> Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better,
> because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me.

Which is globally counterproductive. When you're in a project, you have
to deal with the fact other people are working on it as well. That's why
large projects like Linux or GNOME require a specific coding style for
their contributions. For python-based projects, this isn't even
necessary, as most if not all python programmers already use the same
coding style.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:18:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:14:45PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > > Because python and ruby have (...)
> > > I disagree. (...)
> > This is only (...) maniacs. (...) is better, because (...)
> Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better,
> because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me.

I think we should instead make 'whitespace' essential: Irregardless of
your coding style, it looks the same to the eye, so has the best of both
worlds.

--Jeroen

P.S.: Can we please not go this way?

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:14:45PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more
> > > widely spread and used.
> > 
> > I disagree. Ruby has one feature that python does not have: Ruby does
> > not require you to use a certain specific coding style. 
> 
> This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
> specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone
> knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about.

Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better,
because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more
> > widely spread and used.
> 
> I disagree. Ruby has one feature that python does not have: Ruby does
> not require you to use a certain specific coding style. 

This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone
knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:37:23PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 12:47 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > Personally, I'd prefer to throw out perl rather than to add python. Our
> > set of Essential packages is bloated already as it is.
> 
> Feel free to rewrite the perl parts of all essential packages in C. I
> think it would be a great improvement nevertheless.

I don't have the time to do this, otherwise I would've done so already.

> > There is a difference between "COBOL on VMS" and "Python vs Ruby".
> > Indeed, there is a very strong following of people programming in
> > Python; but the same is true for Ruby. So why add Python and not Ruby?
> 
> Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more
> widely spread and used.

I disagree. Ruby has one feature that python does not have: Ruby does
not require you to use a certain specific coding style. Moreover, Ruby
is way more popular in .jp than python is, IIUC.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 12:47 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > However we have to accept the use of python in more base and required
> > packages. This brings python in as a dependency, that's all. But it
> > has the same consequences as making it essential. If, as it has
> > already been suggested, software like init or adduser was replaced by
> > python implementations, would they be rejected?
> 
> Yes, because python is not Essential.

Oh, so you would reject packages depending on libc6, too?

> Personally, I'd prefer to throw out perl rather than to add python. Our
> set of Essential packages is bloated already as it is.

Feel free to rewrite the perl parts of all essential packages in C. I
think it would be a great improvement nevertheless.

> There is a difference between "COBOL on VMS" and "Python vs Ruby".
> Indeed, there is a very strong following of people programming in
> Python; but the same is true for Ruby. So why add Python and not Ruby?

Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more
widely spread and used.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 02:13:57AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 janvier 2006 à 12:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another
> > scripting language to the set of Essential packages.
> 
> Personally I don't care about the Essential status.

Then what is this whole thread about?

> However we have to accept the use of python in more base and required
> packages. This brings python in as a dependency, that's all. But it
> has the same consequences as making it essential. If, as it has
> already been suggested, software like init or adduser was replaced by
> python implementations, would they be rejected?

Yes, because python is not Essential.

Personally, I'd prefer to throw out perl rather than to add python. Our
set of Essential packages is bloated already as it is.

> > Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along
> > who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and
> > we can start this all over from the start again.
> 
> I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if people
> were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming COBOL on VMS.

There is a difference between "COBOL on VMS" and "Python vs Ruby".
Indeed, there is a very strong following of people programming in
Python; but the same is true for Ruby. So why add Python and not Ruby?
And where would you stop requesting for more scripting languages to be
added?

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 13:35 +0900, Junichi Uekawa a écrit :

> http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2006/01/msg00010.html
> 
> I think the conclusion about LD_PATH was 
>   python includes the 'current directory of the executed binary'
>   ruby includes the 'current directory', thus unsafe.

That's right. Any python script that may be put in an unsafe directory
should first call:
import sys
sys.path.remove('')
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi,

> > Sure, it'd be nice;
> > but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that
> > Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all
> > over from the start again.
> 
> I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if people
> were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming COBOL on VMS.

As long as it's safe to work with a world-writable current directory
/tmp, I wouldn't mind either way.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2006/01/msg00010.html

I think the conclusion about LD_PATH was 
python includes the 'current directory of the executed binary'
ruby includes the 'current directory', thus unsafe.


regards,
junichi
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le vendredi 27 janvier 2006 à 12:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another
> scripting language to the set of Essential packages.

Personally I don't care about the Essential status. However we have to
accept the use of python in more base and required packages. This brings
python in as a dependency, that's all. But it has the same consequences
as making it essential. If, as it has already been suggested, software
like init or adduser was replaced by python implementations, would they
be rejected?

> Sure, it'd be nice;
> but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that
> Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all
> over from the start again.

I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if people
were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming COBOL on VMS.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Matthias Klose]

Florian Weimer writes:
> * Matt Zimmerman:
> 
> > One of the appealing things about the Python language is their "batteries
> > included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is
> > available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc.

which batteries do you mean? my notebook did ship with a standard and
a long-life/extended battery ;) Upstream's batteries include
development things as well ([1]), which doesn't really fit Debian's
practice to split runtime and development files, and renaming python
to python-runtime, python-dev to python doesn't really help. Even the
python windows installer offers options to disable the installation of
some parts of the package. A proposal was to make a user better aware
of differences in packaging, i.e. by hinting to a package when an
ImportError exception is raised ([1] as well).

> Would this really be a problem if the minimal Python implementation
> does not install an interpreter under /usr/bin?

sounds interesting. maybe provide it as /usr/lib/python/bin/python

  Matthias

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/01/msg00135.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[OT] Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Adam Heath]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

> The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another
> scripting language to the set of Essential packages. Sure, it'd be nice;
> but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that
> Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all
> over from the start again.

FORTH!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman:
> 
> > One of the appealing things about the Python language is their "batteries
> > included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is
> > available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc.
> 
> Would this really be a problem if the minimal Python implementation
> does not install an interpreter under /usr/bin?

I cannot speak on behalf of upstream on this point; I can only summarize our
previous discussions.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Florian Weimer]

* Matt Zimmerman:

> One of the appealing things about the Python language is their "batteries
> included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is
> available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc.

Would this really be a problem if the minimal Python implementation
does not install an interpreter under /usr/bin?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:42:47AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 20:04 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit :
> > On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and tools
> > that a Debian developer should know to be effective.
> 
> Despite the days of nightmare I have spent on perl, I couldn't claim to
> be "effective" with perl. When I have an issue with a perl script in
> Debian, I call for help from another developer.

Same as I do with Python scripts. Although I should add that I have not
spent days of nightmare on python.

The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another
scripting language to the set of Essential packages. Sure, it'd be nice;
but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that
Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all
over from the start again.

Add to that the fact that there are people who'd actually prefer the set
of Essential packages to get smaller, not larger (ask on -embedded if
you care), and you'll see why a move to add an extra scripting language
isn't going to be very popular.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 20:04 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit :
> On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and tools
> that a Debian developer should know to be effective.

Despite the days of nightmare I have spent on perl, I couldn't claim to
be "effective" with perl. When I have an issue with a perl script in
Debian, I call for help from another developer. When there are hundreds
of developers, you can always find one with the skills and some time to
help. This is true the other way round: there are now enough developers
skilled with python, so that a developer with a python issue can call
for help.

> I've learned large
> chunks of my bash and perl knowledge to reduce this problem in my own work,
> rather than write it in the language I would have chosen had I been first
> to the site. While perl has its share of problems, it's not that bad and
> refusing to work in it is a little absurd.

Perl is a completely absurd and counter-intuitive language. When you're
used to clear and strict types, you have to wonder how that dumb
software will interpret it and what will happen at each line of code.
Writing code in perl is a pain that takes me 10 times longer than
writing it in python - for the things I manage to write. I'm not event
thinking about understanding most perl scripts out there: the TIMTOWTDI
philosophy leads to as many kinds of programming as there are perl
programmers. In other words: you cannot only learn perl, you have to
think in perl. Which is a very hard task for people used to structured
languages.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[David Nusinow]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:17:43PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> > Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
> > perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
> > implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
> > emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.
> 
> Or we can accept python for the same reasons that perl was accepted: it
> is suitable, enough people like to write scripts in it, and many people
> expect to be able to use it.
> 
> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
> simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
> complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
> with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to
> anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.

On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and tools
that a Debian developer should know to be effective. I've learned large
chunks of my bash and perl knowledge to reduce this problem in my own work,
rather than write it in the language I would have chosen had I been first
to the site. While perl has its share of problems, it's not that bad and
refusing to work in it is a little absurd.

 - David Nusinow


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 21:46 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > > Boot speed and python does not really sound a match...
> > 
> > Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task.
> 
> Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either.

It sounds easier to do high level tasks like boot tasks scheduling or
intelligent caching in a high level language. The best choice for such a
tool would be C, but the speed of the tool itself isn't necessarily the
main limitation.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Mike Hommey]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:12:35PM +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 21:52 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
> > > they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
> > > example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
> > > (...)
> > 
> > Boot speed and python does not really sound a match...
> 
> Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task.

Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.

Or we can accept python for the same reasons that perl was accepted: it
is suitable, enough people like to write scripts in it, and many people
expect to be able to use it.

Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that
simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too
complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal
with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to
anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation.

Regards,
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 21:52 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
> > they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
> > example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
> > (...)
> 
> Boot speed and python does not really sound a match...

Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-01-17 13:28:07, schrieb Adam Borowski:

> A quick comparison of fresh unconfigured i386 chroots:
> 
> 94420   woody
> 146140  sarge
> 160264  etch
> 185444  sid
> 
> a +25MB increase, even though etch is nearly in sync.
> 
> With standard/important packages, you simply don't install them; removing 
> required/essential ones is not trivial.  Extra bloat doesn't 
> noticeably hurt Ubuntu because Ubuntu doesn't try to support memory 
> sticks, old hardware, embedded things or farms of tiny virtual machines; 
> Debian does.  No one cares about wasting some memory and disk space on a 
> modern desktop.

Not right, because I run automated Backups on all of my 116 Servers,
Routers and Workstations and do not like to have some extras to backup
which I do not need, not want to have.  I realy care about the size of
my installed systems.

Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Hood]

Frank_Küster wrote:
> That sounds good, but wouldn't it be even better to have a symlink
> /usr/bin/debpython-minimal or so, pointing to the interpreter?  Then one
> could still replace the interpreter by something else (by putting it
> into /usr/local/bin), for example in order to debug a particularly weird
> problem in a config script?

Or python-minimal could just provide /usr/bin/python-minimal.  Then
programs with minimal requirements would have #!/usr/bin/python-minimal
and their packages would Depend on python-minimal, whereas normal python
programs would have #!/usr/bin/python and would Depend on python.
Behind the scenes /usr/bin/python would be a symlink to
python-minimal but users wouldn't have to know this.  The interpreter
could even be modified so that it allows only modules from the minimal
set to be imported, when run as /usr/bin/python-minimal.

Thus if upstream's concern is that users not have a stripped down python,
then Debian provides a stripped down "python-minimal" instead.
-- 
Thomas Hood

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:16:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian
> does with regard to python-minimal.  The only reason I am participating in
> this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and
> I think I've done that thoroughly now.

Are there any examples of .config's or base packages that use python
in python?

Cheers,
aj


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > > One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> > > and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.

> > This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in
> > Ubuntu or merely a potential issue.

> > Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
> > perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
> > implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
> > emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.

> > Or, we say "we aren't going to support *every* high-level language"
> > and stick to one.

> There's nothing that prevents us saying "we aren't going to support
> every high-level language" and stick to more than one (we already stick
> to two -- sh and Perl). It just means "I'd like to write scripts in X"
> alone isn't a good enough reason.

> Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
> they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
> example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
> seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of
> Python in Essential.

> The real issue here is that the original upload didn't do that; it went
> through the motions without actually changing our Python packaging or
> upgrading the version, so we just got all of Python as Essential. No one
> wanted that.

No, whether to make python-minimal Essential: yes is a real issue as well;
so far I haven't seen any real arguments in favor of doing this in Debian
other than "someone else is doing it".  And as long as Ubuntu *is* doing it
we might as well wait and see whether this results in any scripts in the
wild that we would want to merge back into Debian and would need Essential
python for.  So far, it's my understanding that the implementation in Ubuntu
has preceded any non-theoretical use case, which doesn't sound to me like a
good way to manage policy for Essential.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> We can burn those bridges when we come to them. Right now there's only
> one such distribution, with one such language, which has already done
> all the work to strip it down to a small size.

Scalability problems do not happen because someone failed to stop the
tenth extra case.  They happen because nobody stopped the second.

> Unless you expect some derived Debian distribution to use Scheme some
> day, this is sophistry. If you really do expect that, it's insanity.

I once thought that it was insanity to expect Python to be in broad
use.  I was wrong.

> I don't manage Ubuntu policy, nor do I want to. I am a Debian developer
> interested in Debian. The argument for Debian is not "I'd like to write
> scripts in X" but "There is this large body of people writing scripts in
> X, and it'd be nice if we could work with them."

Yes, I understand.  I'm trying to understand--from a Debian
perspective--whether there are any limits, or it really just is "lots
of people are writing scripts in X"?

And, how many scripts are we talking about anyway?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Joe Wreschnig]

Don't reply to me directly. I should not have to tell you this.

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 13:03 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
> > they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
> > example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
> > seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of
> > Python in Essential.
> 
> This does not scale.  If each Debian derivative chooses a different
> "official language", and we put each of them in Essential, then we end
> up with every language in Essential.

We can burn those bridges when we come to them. Right now there's only
one such distribution, with one such language, which has already done
all the work to strip it down to a small size.

Unless you expect some derived Debian distribution to use Scheme some
day, this is sophistry. If you really do expect that, it's insanity.

> What I hear is *not* that Python is the official language instead of
> Perl, but that it is the official language *in addition to* Perl.  So
> now, why?  Remember, "I'd like to write scripts in X" is not a good
> enough reason, so what is the reason for having two official
> languages?

I don't manage Ubuntu policy, nor do I want to. I am a Debian developer
interested in Debian. The argument for Debian is not "I'd like to write
scripts in X" but "There is this large body of people writing scripts in
X, and it'd be nice if we could work with them."
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> >> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
>> >> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
>> >> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
>> >> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.
>> >
>> > Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python.  So far there has
>> > been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context.
>> 
>> Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that "I would like to write scripts in X"
>> is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential.  It
>> sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood
>> correctly.?
>
> I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian
> does with regard to python-minimal.  The only reason I am participating in
> this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and
> I think I've done that thoroughly now.

No, really, I'm trying to understand Ubuntu's reasoning here, and not
just the actions undertaken.  I understand the actions, but I don't
understand exactly what the reasons are, and it would help me.

The reasons you gave are different than what Joe Wreschnig said; he
spoke of Python being Ubuntu's official language and whatnot, though
what he meant is not that Ubuntu has replaced Perl with Python, but
that Python has been added in.  I can understand "We like Python more
than Perl, so we replaced Perl with Python", though that would be a
lot of work and it isn't what the actual reasoning was anyway.

It seems to be simply that one more official language has been added.
Personally, I can't stand either Python or Perl.  This gives me a
different perspective.  It's not about liking one or the other, but
about the need for Debian to congeal as a whole on a single choice,
lest we need to have every choice.

So I'm wondering, what are the restraints upon the same things at
Ubuntu?  Is it just a flat "we like Python and Perl and nothing else"
or is it "we add any language that there is demand for among Ubuntu
people" or what?

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
> >> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
> >> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
> >> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.
> >
> > Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python.  So far there has
> > been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context.
> 
> Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that "I would like to write scripts in X"
> is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential.  It
> sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood
> correctly.?

I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian
does with regard to python-minimal.  The only reason I am participating in
this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and
I think I've done that thoroughly now.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
>> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
>> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
>> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.
>
> Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python.  So far there has
> been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context.

Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that "I would like to write scripts in X"
is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential.  It
sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood
correctly.?

>> Or, we say "we aren't going to support *every* high-level language"
>> and stick to one.
>
> We aren't going to support every high-level language, but we do support
> more than one in Ubuntu.

The question is, why?  Is it just "we want to use Python too"?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> There's nothing that prevents us saying "we aren't going to support
> every high-level language" and stick to more than one (we already stick
> to two -- sh and Perl). It just means "I'd like to write scripts in X"
> alone isn't a good enough reason.

Yes, this is true.

> Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
> they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
> example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
> seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of
> Python in Essential.

This does not scale.  If each Debian derivative chooses a different
"official language", and we put each of them in Essential, then we end
up with every language in Essential.

Debian already *has* an official language for this purpose: Perl.  If
Ubuntu wants to replace that with Python, it's up to them, but it
seems like a lot of work.

What I hear is *not* that Python is the official language instead of
Perl, but that it is the official language *in addition to* Perl.  So
now, why?  Remember, "I'd like to write scripts in X" is not a good
enough reason, so what is the reason for having two official
languages?



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> > and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
> 
> This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in
> Ubuntu or merely a potential issue.
> 
> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.

Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python.  So far there has
been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context.

> Or, we say "we aren't going to support *every* high-level language"
> and stick to one.

We aren't going to support every high-level language, but we do support
more than one in Ubuntu.

This, of course, has no particular bearing on whether Debian follows suit.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Mike Hommey]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
> they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
> example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
> (...)

Boot speed and python does not really sound a match...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> > and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
> 
> This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in
> Ubuntu or merely a potential issue.
> 
> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.
> 
> Or, we say "we aren't going to support *every* high-level language"
> and stick to one.

There's nothing that prevents us saying "we aren't going to support
every high-level language" and stick to more than one (we already stick
to two -- sh and Perl). It just means "I'd like to write scripts in X"
alone isn't a good enough reason.

Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of
Python in Essential.

The real issue here is that the original upload didn't do that; it went
through the motions without actually changing our Python packaging or
upgrading the version, so we just got all of Python as Essential. No one
wanted that.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> No, not yet.  The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to
>>> writing any such scripts.
>
>> Are there .config scripts written in other languages?
>
> I would expect so, given that there are .config scripts written in Perl in
> Debian.  In krb5-config, for instance, there is a bit of Perl code that
> parses the default realm out of an existing /etc/krb5.conf file.  It's
> possible to rewrite that code in sed (I've done it), but it's not quite as
> thorough and it's less maintainable.

Yeah, I know that Debian has them, of course.  My question is a little
narrower (though I phrased it badly).  I'm wondering whether Ubuntu
has many .config scripts that it writes, which are written in (say)
Perl.

Though I think really my principal argument against adding
python-minimal to Essential is that there is no way to do it which is
not an invitation to users to use it as such (and this is contrary to
upstream's ideas of what Python is all about), and even more, that we
don't need every scripting language in Essential.  We need one, and
Perl is decent enough, and we have chosen it and can use it.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Russ Allbery]

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> No, not yet.  The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to
>> writing any such scripts.

> Are there .config scripts written in other languages?

I would expect so, given that there are .config scripts written in Perl in
Debian.  In krb5-config, for instance, there is a bit of Perl code that
parses the default realm out of an existing /etc/krb5.conf file.  It's
possible to rewrite that code in sed (I've done it), but it's not quite as
thorough and it's less maintainable.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Thomas Hood [Fri, Jan 20 2006, 10:32:06AM]:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The compromise we struck with upstream was that we would not give
> > the user a system with a "broken" Python.
> 
> 
> So upstream objects to the separate packaging of python-minimal unless
> all of python is installed when python-minimal is installed (which in
> Ubuntu's case is: always) unless the user takes special action to
> prevent this.  Hmm.

Just my 0.02€: that is upstream's deliberate decission, telling you not
to use Python for Essential-class code.

You simply cannot follow both targets, the "most blown full useable
environment" and "slim interpreter". Most of this thread is modern
alchemy, trying to cheat / find ways between them but not getting
anything right.

Sometimes decissions must be made and in this case the rule should be:
stick to what you have or make best compromises when integrating new
stuff. Since a compromise (reduced python environment) is taboo, just
forget it. If we follow the latest shiny tool on the horizont, we should
integrate Java and .NET into base. With full dependencies, of course.

Eduard.
-- 
 Statler: Durchsuch mal die fortunes nach Aqua ;)
 Tolimar, ich find nichts von den Sachen lustig
 ihr habt ja sogar das reingegeben als ich gefragt wurde welche Xfree
version ich habe


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Agustin Martin]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:14:19AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> If you won't acknowledge that, then know that upstream also object to the
> name "python-base" for something which has a stripped-down standard library.

Both pythol-minimal and python-base sound to something an end user would
expect to contain a minimal, but working, python environment from end user
POV.

I would go for a name that clearly discourages an end user from thinking
that (python-minlib, python-installerlib ... other better names).

Not to mention that description should heavily discourage end users from
thinking that way.

Suggestion from Thomas Hood seems good to me, that means you are not
installing python, just some elements you need, and you are not claiming to
have installed python since 'python' is not available as that in the
search path.

-- 
Agustin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]