Reini Urban schrieb:
> redhat and cygwin maintained a single parrot-languages package,
> besides parrot-perl6.
>
> The goal for parrot-1.0 is to drop out all languages.
> First tcl dropped out, and since 0.9 a lot more, so I will discontinue
> maintaining a single parrot-languages package.
> My languages makefile patches were also rejected to be able to collect the
> language-specific docs and installables, so it became impossible to
> maintain it at once,
> there's no Parrot::Install library support neither,
> and I see no light at the end of the tunnel to consistently maintain
> installable languages.
> I used a package scripting hack before similar to redhat but this is a
> unmaintainable mess.
>
> How should I communicate this to cygwin?
>
> 42 parrot-$LANG packages are up for grabs:
> APL
> BASIC
> PIR
> WMLScript
> Zcode
> abc
> amber
> befunge
> bf
> c99
> cardinal
> chitchat
> cola
> dotnet
> eclectus
> ecmascript
> forth
> hq9plus
> jako
> json
> jvm
> lazy-k
> lisp
> lolcode
> lua
> m4
> ook
> pheme
> pipp
> plumhead
> pugs
> punie
> pynie
> regex
> scheme
> squaak
> tap
> tcl
> unlambda
> urm
>
> Maybe I'll take parrot-pipp, but not more.
>
Most of the languages are experimental and are not actively worked on.
I can definitly say that for 'm4' and 'eclectus'. So I would boil down
the list
to maybe:
parrot-abc, parrot-lolcode, parrot-lua, parrot-pipp, parrot-squaak,
parrot-tcl, parrot-perl6.
Maybe the task of providing a Parrot::Install will become more
manageable, when
less languages need to be supported.
I'd be grateful, if you could take over maintainance of the packaging of
Pipp.
Regards,
Bernhard
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
