However I completely disagree that Python (or Perl or PHP) is a good choice for use in build systems.
As part of the configure process, I would agree with you, but as part of
buildconf, I disagree--not everyone needs to run buildconf--only
developers, and if you're a developer, it's *really* not asking that
much to have Python on your dev box.
Sure it is. If I wasn't so busy I would have vetoed the change on the grounds that it causes httpd to no longer be buildable by developers on the Cray MP. And no, I don't care whether anyone else thinks that is an important requirement. Creating entry barriers is what prevents development on new platforms that you haven't even heard of yet.
We haven't been using sh/sed/awk as our build platform because we thought those were good languages. I'm sorry, but being too busy to maintain the existing scripts is no excuse for rewriting them in a less portable language. As soon as someone has the time to write it in a portable language, the python should be removed.
So no... switching to a shell script would not be beneficial, as it would
cut off future capabilities.
I doubt that. .dsp and .dsw files are just other text files which can easily be created using sh, grep, sed, tr etc.
Ick. Ick ick ick ick ick. "Easily" is obviously a subjective term. Who
wants to write (and, more importantly, *maintain*) hundreds (or
thousands) of lines of /bin/sh code? Not to mention the fact that
Python can be much more compact than /bin/sh after you hit a certain
level of complexity.
Irrelevant to the task at hand.
Anyway, I suppose that agreeing to disagree may be for the best here.
Subversion has required python to run autogen.sh for years now, and it's
been great for us.
Subversion has zero deployment when compared to httpd. It should be learning lessons from httpd's history, not casting it aside.
....Roy
