Hamish wrote: > >>>> Maybe we should use the Python version from 7.0? Many users > >>>> will want Python anyhow, whereas Perl is only used for > >>>> g.html2man. > Hamish: > >>> At this point, my vote, AFA 6.4.0 goes, is to follow the > >>> path of least change. Which is to keep the existing perl > >>> script. > Martin: > >> OK, anyway I would vote to replace Perl script in 6.5. > Markus: > > Agreed - we may then backport to 6.4.1 if possible and stable. > > actually now that I think about it, this is much more of a > shift in policy and I'm not sure if we should think about it > for 6.5 either. > > Remember that currently python is not a mandatory build dep for > GRASS 6.x. > > Also AFAIK python does not come preinstalled on e.g. debian as > a base package, but perl does. > > So we are making python a mandatory build dep for ... getting > man(1) pages working on MS Windows ?? seems very dis- > proportionate to me.
Why is making a Python a mandatory build dependency worse than making Perl a mandatory build dependency? At least Python is useful for other things, while Perl is *only* used for g.html2man. As for the merits of the two versions of g.html2man: the Python version can handle tables, although the Perl version has the advantage that it can't fail (it may produce garbage, but AFAICT it will produce *something* so long as the input file exists). IMHO, the main reason to stick with the Perl version isn't down to which language to make a required dependency, but the effort required to clean up the 6.x manpages. -- Glynn Clements <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
