On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 03:12:00AM -0700, Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:31:20 +0000, Adrian Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello all :) > > > > Do any of you know why Perl was chosen for LFS instead of either Python > > or Ruby? > > Only because some other packages, most notably Glibc, have a build dependency > on > it. I personally have never written any Perl code, and try not to read it if > at all possible (it hurts my eyes!). Python's my weapon of choice these days, > if my needs go beyond a trivial-ish shell script. > I never managed to get my head around Python's idiosyncratic requirements for how the code should be laid out. Now, I'm glad I don't use it.
The official vulnerability at http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-0318 is flagged against gnumeric (and is, perhaps, fixed with Python-2.6), but if you read https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481572 you will see that it seems to be applicable to anything that embeds Python (dia, epiphany, vim were mentioned). I found comment #11 (a custom optparse.py downloaded into ~/ was crashing apps such as totem and rhythmbox at startup) particularly interesting. Let's just face it - all scripting languages can turn nasty. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
