Previously Aaron Lehmann wrote: > Would that make (*shudder*) python mandatory for people who build > packages? We already have one required crappy language in the > distribution, and I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to add yet > another.
<advocate>I'm not replacing it with another crappy language though</advocate>. > Perhaps this would be best implemented as a shell script. However, the > hash stuff would not be quite so simple in shell. How about using > shoop (*duck*) :). Get real :). Python is perfect for something like this. (argueably so it perl, I just happen to prefer python). > To return to being serious, I think that this script is short enough > that it's not worth mandating python installation for all developers > just to use it. It would be trivial to rewrite it in Perl. Can Python > produce small excecutables that do not depend on pythonic libraries? No, the other perl scripts will become either python scripts or C programs in the period of this year. I'll make sure dpkg doesn't start depending on python, but dpkg-dev will likely become all python. Wichert. -- _________________________________________________________________ / Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
