From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31404 invoked by uid 1002); 17 Apr 2003 20:45:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 3053 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2003 20:45:03 -0000 From: "merv" To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 23:56:18 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-to: merv@spidernet.com.cy Message-ID: <3E9F3F22.11674.FADE22F@localhost> Priority: normal In-reply-to: <20030417064540.GB1381@Daikan.pandora.be> References: <20030416224428.GA31419@datalap.aamit.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] initscripts in python X-Archives-Salt: 3fccefca-be18-4e94-8028-a5a9096dce31 X-Archives-Hash: c418226cb5045b37662337d137cc3e68 I can see your point. But there would, I believe, be very deliberate measures taken to ensure that the use of python in initscrits, since this is how the discussion started, did not result in a kind of python lock- down of Gentoo. >>From my own point of view, the underlying theme of the idea is the concept of a more "extensible" shell. Sh would remain the default required language of the shell environment. It is a poewrful and widely shared tool and remove it would be self-defeating. But the optional inclusion of the Python-style shell syntax or dialect at build time, and later thru interactive activation/deactivation switches at the prompt and in scripts, would mean that python shell environment could be switched on and off at will, could be used in a mixed environment with sh, and of course could be unmerged and compiled out at any time. That the portage tree should have been written in python is perhaps a sign of Gentoo's progressive streak, but yes, non-python portage is a real possibility as could multi-language, selectable portage in the future. The issue is not really about using Python per se. Python is already a large part of Gentoo and is, in many senses, relatively accessible to the wider community (I know that argument is all much of a muchness). Maybe the extensible shell could evolve to provide support for other languages. As an anchor in our debate, and as a reference, isn't tcsh an example of the spirit of an extensible shell? Here we have C-like syntax operating at the shell level messaging the kernel. Performance benefits of the C language itself on one side, isn't this (in a more developed [meaning, dynamic rather than static] form) the kind ofthing we are talking about? Would not the future look, in these circumstances, something like a world in which the gentooer, at build time, could select to have a shell (with default sh) augmented with one or more language-dialects (syntax libraries, say Perl, Python and Ruby, or even JS and PHP...what the heck?!) of his/her choice for interactive use in the shell environment? On 17 Apr 2003 at 8:45, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:44:28PM -0700, Abhishek Amit wrote: > > If you run gentoo python is a requirment that you can not avoid in any > > way. Portage is completly python. So I don't really see how python could > > be too heavy unless you mean specifically for running these scripts. > > Portage is completely python, yes, but you cannot know what the future will > hold. I've personally already been working on a Gentoo-without-Portage (well, > if you can still call it Gentoo that is :) for fun. > > Creating the initscripts in Python will force you to stick with Python as a > primary dependency, even if the Gentoo developers someday would say "hey, > perhaps we can make a Gentoo-project with a C-coded Portage". > > Wkr, > Sven Vermeulen > > -- > Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. > -- Merv Hammer mailto: merv@spidernet.com.cy -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list