> Another perfectly valid way to look at this is that Perl is _forced_ > to be part of the minimum install image _because_ it's used for > important system components. > > That's still architectural.
There is a distinction between the runtime environment and the code the developer writes and maintains. As Darren has pointed out twice, the Perl runtime is already part of ON. Why should a Perl developer have to concern him/herself with architectural issues about the runtime? In the general case, I don't have to worry about architectural issues with ld.so.1(1) just because I've written a dynamically linked executable. > > Now adding Python or other language runtime of choice into the minimal > > install image would be architectural, but Perl is already there. > > Yes, those would have essentially the same sort of impact. As far as > I know, there's no explicit policy or precedent here. If we're trying to make it easier for more people to develop OpenSolaris, making rules about what languages can and can't be used seems counterproductive. I happen to agree with Darren on the point that PSARC isn't the place to make these decisions. Having a committe make a implementation decision for a developer really isn't appropriate. However, if you're intent upon having a PSARC precedent, I'll draft a case requiring all future development in OpenSolaris to take place in Z80 assembly and COBOL. -j _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
