Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 06:36:11PM -0800]: This is not to day that Python is bad - It has better OO, which Perl unfortunately negletted fromt he very starts. Now, talk about Perl OO and that's hairy!. Actually, Python *also* ignored OO at the beginning. It has grafted it on, but since real OO is either Smalltalk or the Metaobject Protocol, I'll have to beg off on whether C++ or Perl or Python has better OO. Umh... We can talk about more intuitive. As a Perl fan, I must say Perl's OO is far from being intuitive. Python's and Ruby's are excellent. Java's is awkward (as anything in Java is). But this only adds noice and practically no signal to the discussion :-) Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Perl syntax is elegant, efficient and Python's regexp handling is nowhere as intuitive as needed for day-to-day tasks where the poer is needed. Efficient, perhaps, but _elegant_?!? HAhahahahah1hahah3$I17-e87 Perl is an utter mess, with a few nice bits here and there. I know that religious wars about programming languages are all fun and give you the warm and fuzzy feeling around the head you love SOOO much, but we had our share. So unless you have *anything* to say about the actual topic of the discussion, just shut up. Thanks! Marc -- BOFH #15: temporary routing anomoly pgpiYRfSRpEUa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: actual topic of the discussion, just shut up. Oh get a life. It's perfectly relevant to talk about the qualities of the languages involved. Thanks! -miles -- = (^o^; (())) *This is the cute octopus virus, please copy it into your sig so it can spread. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
pe, 2006-02-17 kello 10:58 +0900, Miles Bader kirjoitti: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: actual topic of the discussion, just shut up. Oh get a life. It's perfectly relevant to talk about the qualities of the languages involved. A comparative discussion about languages might be useful and productive. A discussion with arguments like Efficient, perhaps, but _elegant_?!? HAhahahahah1hahah3$I17-e87[1] is not such a discussion. The point of this thread has, at least in theory, been whether Python (in full or in part) should become an essential package so that various packaging scripts could be written in it. I suspect that all constructive arguments have been made already and that the consensus is no, not now, maybe later when it's OK to make the set of essential packages bigger. In other words, status quo continues, the same one that Debian has had for a decade or so. Now can we please not perpetrate this thread anymore? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/02/msg00539.html -- Communication via acronyms is rfs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:19 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
And if we followed the the line of argument you are pressing
uncritically, we'd bloat essential/base with gazillions of
interpreters from people too lazy or incompetent to learn the
interpreters already in base.
I prefer to be labeled as incompetent by people like you than to write
scripts that no one will be able to understand later. Every time I face
a write-once, never change perl script, the only thing to do is to
rewrite it. And this isn't a Debian-specific issue.
Don't blame the language[1], but the people. You can as well code unbearable
code in C/C++/Mono/C# (whatever) that no-one can understand. The Perl
syntax is elegant, efficient and Python's regexp handling is nowhere
as intuitive as needed for day-to-day tasks where the poer is needed.
This is not to day that Python is bad - It has better OO, which Perl
unfortunately negletted fromt he very starts. Now, talk about Perl OO
and that's hairy!.
Jari
[1] Example of Perl coding (do not blame the language):
#
#
# DESCRIPTION
#
# Convert tokens 7m, 2h, 3d into minutes. Die if value is not numeric.
#
# INPUT PARAMETERS
#
# none
#
# RETURN VALUES
#
# none
#
#
sub TimeValue ($)
{
my $id = $LIB.TimeValue;
local ($ARG) = (@ARG);
if ( /^(\d+)([mhd]?)$/ )
{
$ARG = $1;
my $spec = $2 if defined $2;
$debug and print $id: val [$ARG] spec [$spec]\n;
my $factor = 1;
$factor = 60if $spec =~ /h/i;
$factor = 60 *24if $spec =~ /d/i;
$ARG *= $factor;
$debug and print $id: val [$ARG] factor [$factor]\n;
}
else
{
die $id: Not a recognized time value [$ARG]. Try 2m, 2d, 2h;
}
$ARG;
}
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Perl syntax is elegant, efficient and Python's regexp handling is nowhere as intuitive as needed for day-to-day tasks where the poer is needed. Efficient, perhaps, but _elegant_?!? HAhahahahah1hahah3$I17-e87 Perl is an utter mess, with a few nice bits here and there. -miles -- `The suburb is an obsolete and contradictory form of human settlement' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not to day that Python is bad - It has better OO, which Perl unfortunately negletted fromt he very starts. Now, talk about Perl OO and that's hairy!. Actually, Python *also* ignored OO at the beginning. It has grafted it on, but since real OO is either Smalltalk or the Metaobject Protocol, I'll have to beg off on whether C++ or Perl or Python has better OO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. I'm in that category too. Perl has always looked crazy to me. Scheme, anyone? Amen to that, except for the scheme, python in essential is enough for me, thank you. a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. I'm in that category too. Perl has always looked crazy to me. Your unwillingness or inability to learn something new is no reason to bloat base unnecessarily. But we have had this discussion already, and it was, AFAICR, settled. Or are you just down to replying randomly to every email you see? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. I'm in that category too. Perl has always looked crazy to me. Your unwillingness or inability to learn something new is no reason to bloat base unnecessarily. But we have had this discussion already, and it was, AFAICR, settled. Or are you just down to replying randomly to every email you see? Um, are you aware of the context? I'm not in favor of putting python in base, and I'm quite content to leave perl as the one supported high-level interpreter. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. I'm in that category too. Perl has always looked crazy to me. Scheme, anyone? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an exercise in jejune mud slinging. Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand won't help your argumentation. How is jejune unfair? How can I predict which words you will or won't know? Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary. Oh wait, it does.
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an exercise in jejune mud slinging. Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand won't help your argumentation. How is jejune unfair? How can I predict which words you will or won't know? Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary. Oh wait, it does. Manoj probably thought (as I did, until I ran dict) that jejune is a French word never used in English. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA In politics, being ridiculous is more damaging than being extreme. Roy Hattersley
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an exercise in jejune mud slinging. Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand won't help your argumentation. How is jejune unfair? How can I predict which words you will or won't know? Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary. Oh wait, it does. Manoj probably thought (as I did, until I ran dict) that jejune is a French word never used in English. I find it unlikely to think that Manoj was trying to use a French word. I think he is simply an accomplished writer, using a carefully chosen ordinary English word, and doesn't know which English words French people normally learn. Thomas
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Thomas, how does responding to a flamey thread that had already died a week and a half earlier make anything better? (It doesn't even matter that the point had already been made.) Debian has a tendency to have many or most of its mailing list discussion turn into flame wars, and this is bad, because it deters people with constructive input from participating. If we are to ever improve the situation the least we can do is to not respond to mails in flame wars that have already died. Preferably, not responding to flame mails at all, but let's start with a small step. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an exercise in jejune mud slinging. Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand won't help your argumentation. How is jejune unfair? How can I predict which words you will or won't know? Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary. Oh wait, it does. Manoj probably thought (as I did, until I ran dict) that jejune is a French word never used in English. I find it unlikely to think that Manoj was trying to use a French word. I think he is simply an accomplished writer, using a carefully chosen ordinary English word, and doesn't know which English words French people normally learn. Then I made a mistake in who wrote Deliberate use of words... -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA In politics you can't be true to all of your friends all of the time. Perry S. Heath (RNC secretary, 1900-04)
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:12 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an exercise in jejune mud slinging. Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand won't help your argumentation. How is jejune unfair? How can I predict which words you will or won't know? Maybe Debian should ship a dictionary. Oh wait, it does. Manoj probably thought (as I did, until I ran dict) that jejune is a French word never used in English. I find it unlikely to think that Manoj was trying to use a French word. I think he is simply an accomplished writer, using a carefully chosen ordinary English word, and doesn't know which English words French people normally learn. Then I made a mistake in who wrote Deliberate use of words... Um, I also think it extremely unlikely that Josselin thought jejune was a French word...
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit : On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. What's this wouldn't be accepted nonsense? Are you seriously suggesting that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python? Yes, this is because all dependencies of a package must be of equal or higher priority. Having adduser depending on python would imply to increase the priority of python. Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle. They're refusing it on the principle of the cost/benefit ratio sucks. Not a bad principle, as things go. The arguments I've heard most are not about that ratio. They're only about but you can do it in perl!. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit : On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. What's this wouldn't be accepted nonsense? Are you seriously suggesting that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python? Yes, this is because all dependencies of a package must be of equal or higher priority. Having adduser depending on python would imply to increase the priority of python. Call it 'adduser-python' then. Show that it's better (oh, for an objective criterion) and it'll get switched. Not exactly rocket science. You're going to have to do that anyway, even *if* python is essential, because nobody, even the most die-hard Pythonista, would be dumb enough to call for tossing out the current adduser implementation for a Python one until the new one had undergone some fairly massive testing in production. Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle. They're refusing it on the principle of the cost/benefit ratio sucks. Not a bad principle, as things go. The arguments I've heard most are not about that ratio. You made the argument. - Matt
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit : On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. What's this wouldn't be accepted nonsense? Are you seriously suggesting that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python? Yes, this is because all dependencies of a package must be of equal or higher priority. Having adduser depending on python would imply to increase the priority of python. Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle. They're refusing it on the principle of the cost/benefit ratio sucks. Not a bad principle, as things go. The arguments I've heard most are not about that ratio. They're only about but you can do it in perl!. No, that's not true. You have read it that way, that's right; but that's an entirely different matter altogether. I haven't seen _anyone_ say but it's possible to do in perl, so why bother? What I _have_ seen, is many people say we have perl in base already, adding python would result in base seriously growing in size, so what's the benefit?, which is something entirely different. The only reaction from you that I've seen thus far is but Python is much better than Perl!, which obviously attracts some knee-jerk reactions. That doesn't mean there's no reasonable reason for rejecting the idea of Python in base at this point in time. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:26:31AM +0100, Emilio Jes??s Gallego Arias wrote: Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability I think you're somewhat joking about using Haskell, but your script weights: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ ls -lh a.out -rwxr-xr-x 1 egallego egallego 182K 2006-01-30 00:19 a.out This is including all the Haskell runtime. Using a shared runtime would be the optimal solution, as the compiled module is about 9Kb (without stripping): Interestingly the size is highly dependent on the architecture: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-* -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 6960782 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 266065 Jan 30 14:09 postrm-i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ strip postrm* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-* -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 4702544 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 156720 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-i386 (This is sarge ghc6) However, AFAIK GHC doesn't support sharing the runtime. IIRC, The FAQ says the runtime ABI is too fragile to be practical to have a shared runtime. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interestingly the size is highly dependent on the architecture: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-* -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 6960782 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 266065 Jan 30 14:09 postrm-i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ strip postrm* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l postrm-* -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 4702544 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-amd64 -rwxr-xr-x 1 ballombe ballombe 156720 Jan 30 14:10 postrm-i386 Ups, that seems wrong :) I thought that AMD64 maybe wasn't a registered port in Sarge GHC, but it is. Anyways, using an hypothetical shared runtime would be too much bloat for maintainer scripts anyways. A far better approach would be to use Haskell as a script language, but AFAIK this is not really possible yet. Regards, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] If people find Perl too hard (feh), and python too ugly, regressive syntactically, and counter intuitive, and want ruby, or scheme, or haskell, what then? Unless there is a requirement that maintainer scripts have to be shipped in an ascii-based format (and TTBOMK there is not), Scheme and Haskell should be fine even now. Build-depend on an appropriate compiler, compile the script at build time, and ship the binary. The problem arises only when people want to write infrastructure scripts in languages that need an interpreter to run. -- Henning Makholm ... popping pussies into pies Wouldn't do in my shop just the thought of it's enough to make you sick and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
[Manoj Srivastava] On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:35:08 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand won't help your argumentation. I beg your pardon. I was expecting a modicum of competence, obviously my trust of such was misplaced. I agree that whining about the hard word is out of place - but so is pointing this out in such an insulting manner. (Josselin, you might be gratified to hear that I, a native speaker, wasn't sure of the meaning of 'jejune' either. He's right, though, it's not hard to look it up.) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
su, 2006-01-29 kello 04:35 +0100, Josselin Mouette kirjoitti: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an exercise in jejune mud slinging. Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand won't help your argumentation. Language war bad. Bad. Bad language war. Bad, bad, bad. Language war: bad. No language war. No, no, no. No bad language war. Stop language war. Stop - language - war. Stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. Bad language war stop. Now. Stop bad language war now. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
#include hallo.h * Josselin Mouette [Sun, Jan 29 2006, 04:27:06AM]: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:21 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. Perl _maniacs_, eh? Gratuitous insults. Hmm. To descend to your level, only python morons would find a style straight jacket better. Maybe you think that all perl developers are perl maniacs, but this is not what I said. That's your vocabulary that matters and your style of picking up extreme cases to substantiate a crazy idea. Unfortunately too many people tend to repeat that syntax corset makes your code understandable story while they confuse different problems in human code understanding. Eduard. -- Wer wirklich noch einen 4.x-Browser benutzt, dem kann leider nicht mehr geholfen werden. Die haben soviele Sicherheitsloecher, da koennten wir per www.linuxtag.org, Exploit und etwas Scriptmagic einen neuen Browser von Remote installieren. // Michael Kleinhenz, lt2k-ml
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
#include hallo.h * Josselin Mouette [Sun, Jan 29 2006, 04:44:32AM]: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people, perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications? You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't want to waste their time with an inefficient language, you label them as incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than learning perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from people who don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build the best OS out there - only the best perl OS. Broken logics. You do accept every contribution even if you know that patch does not comply with your quality standards? And a language (itself) is inefficient because _you_ don't want to learn it? And you can compare the efficiency without knowing how a _good_ implementation in the other language may look like? If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist, because these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks. Heh, now your change your line of argumentation just to make it look less foolish. Congratulations. Eduard. -- Treibholz Hey! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ist richtig schlimm Treibholz Da kriegt man, wenn man Hallo sagt, als Antwort schon rtfm! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
#include hallo.h * Mike Hommey [Thu, Jan 26 2006, 09:46:26PM]: On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:12:35PM +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 21:52 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This (...) Boot speed and python does not really sound a match... Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task. Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either. Nack. Even following the synthetic benchmarks on http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/, they are quite comparable, especially when looking at other candidates: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=alllang=perllang2=ruby Especially the startup time is much higher with Python so I wonder why people want to use it for many small maintainer scripts. The only improvement comes with use of Python Psycho which is IIRC still experimental and non-portable. Eduard. -- Everything is illusion. Constructs of language, light, metaphor; nothing is real. -- Babylon 5, Season 4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 03:14 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit : (Josselin, you might be gratified to hear that I, a native speaker, wasn't sure of the meaning of 'jejune' either. He's right, though, it's not hard to look it up.) Of course it's not hard to look up a word in the dictionary. But it raises arbitrarily the barrier for comprehension. After all, I could answer in French. It's not that hard to translate. When people make the effort to speak your native language, you can make an effort as well to make yourself easily understandable. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 11:07 +0100, Eduard Bloch a écrit : You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't want to waste their time with an inefficient language, you label them as incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than learning perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from people who don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build the best OS out there - only the best perl OS. Broken logics. You do accept every contribution even if you know that patch does not comply with your quality standards? I can see if the patch complies with my quality standards by looking at the patch. Not by asking the contributor if he knows an unrelated programming language. And a language (itself) is inefficient because _you_ don't want to learn it? It is inefficient *for me*. From the very beginning, you've been insulting the wrong person. After all, I *do* know perl, I even contributed some perl code in Debian. I know perl enough to know that: * I will never be able to write a perl script in a time comparable to that of writing a similar python script. * I won't be able to understand a random perl script written with a programming style I'm not accustomed to in a reasonable amount of time. This is enough for making this language inefficient for me. It's much more efficient to ask for help from people more knowledgeable with this language and to spend my time with things I can enjoy hacking. And you can compare the efficiency without knowing how a _good_ implementation in the other language may look like? When the implementation already exists, the measurement for efficiency differs. You have to compare the time needed to hack the existing implementation to the time needed to rewrite it from scratch. If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist, because these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks. Heh, now your change your line of argumentation just to make it look less foolish. Congratulations. Or maybe it's just there's nothing to argue about for haskell and scheme. Show me an administration script written in haskell or scheme, and we can include the language in the discussion. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 20:42 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in the base system and cannot be currently because Python isn't included? Be specific. A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the way that Python would enter base; without that, I think this discussion is largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into argumentative corners that can only result in hurt feelings. There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:58:05 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 20:42 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in the base system and cannot be currently because Python isn't included? Be specific. A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the way that Python would enter base; without that, I think this discussion is largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into argumentative corners that can only result in hurt feelings. There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. Unless there is a technical rationale for writing things in a new language (no, I'm too lazy to learn the old one is not good enough), this is not a bad thing. Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle. The probability of such a package coming up which would make the cost benefit analysis worth it is pretty low. In my opinion, of course. manoj -- Everyone's head is a cheap movie show. Jeff G. Bone Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:38:32 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Of course it's not hard to look up a word in the dictionary. But it raises arbitrarily the barrier for comprehension. It is hard to know a priori how much to lower ones language to -- should one stick to Look, Jane, look. See Spot. See Spot run.? After all, I could answer in French. It's not that hard to translate. While this obviously has not made an impression on you, the official language of the lists is English. When people make the effort to speak your native language, you can make an effort as well to make yourself easily understandable. Whose native tongue, Kemo Sabe? मेरा नाम “मनोज श्रिवास्तव” है| manoj amused to think th language he learned fourth is thought to be his native tongue -- There's no use in having a dog and doing your own barking. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 09:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. Unless there is a technical rationale for writing things in a new language (no, I'm too lazy to learn the old one is not good enough), this is not a bad thing. Oh, great. Preventing evolutions from happening, just because some people judge their language to be able to replace anything another language can do, this must be a good thing. We'd better let those skilled people make all evolutions happen, of course they have all the time to rewrite all contributions in their TRUE and ONLY language. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said: Oh, great. Preventing evolutions from happening, just because some people judge their language to be able to replace anything another language can do, this must be a good thing. We'd better let those skilled people make all evolutions happen, of course they have all the time to rewrite all contributions in their TRUE and ONLY language. It seems to me you're entirely missing the point and being needlessly argumentative. Essential needs to be kept small, so we want to minimize the number of things in it. There is already a status quo - we have perl, and several scripts written in perl that are fairly important. If you want python added, you'll need to come up with a fairly convincing argument for why Essential should get bigger. If you want to replace perl, you'll need to come up with a fairly convincing argument for why people should do all the work of rewriting the existing code. I've got nothing against python (except the usual revulsion for a language where whitespace is significant), but you're really going to need to do better than whining about being oppressed to get python into Essential. Now, do you actually have arguments for why Essential should get bigger except that you don't happen to like perl? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:54:17 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 09:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. Unless there is a technical rationale for writing things in a new language (no, I'm too lazy to learn the old one is not good enough), this is not a bad thing. Oh, great. Preventing evolutions from happening, just because some people judge their language to be able to replace anything another language can do, this must be a good thing. If asking for a technical rationale is way too much for you, I am glad you are not in charge. Gratuitous, whimsical, random changes in critical infrastructure are not laudable, and not something to emulate. We'd better let those skilled people make all evolutions happen, of course they have all the time to rewrite all contributions in their TRUE and ONLY language. I can see your logic skillz are on par with your language skillz. Russ said it best already: once a language as heen accepted, there is a measure of cost of change. It is not a my language is bigger than your language -- it is a matter of doing a cost benefit analysis. And yes, I do believe if someone can't handle the technical tasks of Debian package management and systems integration (which includes sticking to the current policy, or providing technical rationale for why policy must be modified), they should indeed leave package management to those who can. Not everyone needs to be a DD. manoj -- Unix: Some say the learning curve is steep, but you only have to climb it once. Karl Lehenbauer Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. Well, if those people don't mind their policies, now there's Ubuntu with python in essential. That work, if good, won't go to waste even if Debian doesn't want it. There's a testing ground in Ubuntu for rewriting some core component in Python and making it much better, so much better that we all gasp in appreciation and want it in Debian too. Not all rewrites are improvements, so I don't get particularly excited about people's plans to rewrite something and make it so much better. Few rewrites that are started actually finish. The few that are often introduce lots of new bugs in exchange for the old, known, worked-around bugs. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 10:42 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : I can see your logic skillz are on par with your language skillz. Russ said it best already: once a language as heen accepted, there is a measure of cost of change. It is not a my language is bigger than your language -- it is a matter of doing a cost benefit analysis. And yes, I do believe if someone can't handle the technical tasks of Debian package management and systems integration (which includes sticking to the current policy, or providing technical rationale for why policy must be modified), they should indeed leave package management to those who can. Not everyone needs to be a DD. This is enough. I don't expect to get any apologies on this list, but I won't discuss anymore with people whose only arguments are insults. I'm not here to deal with your ego issues. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:51:44PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Or maybe it's just there's nothing to argue about for haskell and scheme. Show me an administration script written in haskell or scheme, and we can include the language in the discussion. Actually I would advocate to rewrite _all_ the maintainers scripts in haskell. There are absolutly critical to the correction operation of Debian systems and we cannot rely on so brittle a language than POSIX sh. Actually, since haskell can be compiled to native code, we don't even need to move any haskell packages to base. Look how cleanly the following postrm script implement policy 6.4: module Main where import System import IO import Directory main = getArgs = postrm postrm [remove]= exitWith ExitSuccess postrm [purge] = try (removeFile /etc/foobar.conf) postrm [upgrade, new_version ] = exitWith ExitSuccess postrm [failed-upgrade, old_version ] = exitWith ExitSuccess postrm [abort-install] = exitWith ExitSuccess postrm [abort-install, old_version]= exitWith ExitSuccess postrm [abort-upgrade, old_version]= exitWith ExitSuccess postrm [disappear, overwriter, overwriter_version] = exitWith ExitSuccess postrm bad_command_line = error (Maintainer script called with unknown arguments ++ (foldl (\x - \y -x++ ++y) bad_command_line)) The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability and maintainability that this would give to Debian far outweight the extra disk usage. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. PS: May I be allowed to remember that perl-base was introduced mainly for the purpose of replacing awk scripts and other awk+sed+sh mix ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:55:29 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 10:42 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : I can see your logic skillz are on par with your language skillz. Russ said it best already: once a language as heen accepted, there is a measure of cost of change. It is not a my language is bigger than your language -- it is a matter of doing a cost benefit analysis. And yes, I do believe if someone can't handle the technical tasks of Debian package management and systems integration (which includes sticking to the current policy, or providing technical rationale for why policy must be modified), they should indeed leave package management to those who can. Not everyone needs to be a DD. This is enough. So you want people who can not handle the technical tasks of Debian package management and systems integration to continue to delude themselves and short change the users by sticking to their guns? I don't expect to get any apologies on this list, but I won't discuss anymore with people whose only arguments are insults. My arguments weren't _wholly_ insults. I'm not here to deal with your ego issues. Seems to me I am not the one with a bruised ego here. manoj -- I'm not sure whether that's actually useful... Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is written in, you can't expect him to start working on it. What's this wouldn't be accepted nonsense? Are you seriously suggesting that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python? Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle. They're refusing it on the principle of the cost/benefit ratio sucks. Not a bad principle, as things go. Spend some time enhancing the benefit side of the equation, and less time screaming that people are meanies, and your language-of-choice-for-today might just have a hope of making it in. - Matt Bannerwaver for Ruby in Essential because it'd be cool. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:17:13AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 17:01 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit : [Josselin Mouette] Because python and ruby have similar features Same with perl and python. Great. I guess you're going to second the upcoming GR that will state that Pi=3 ? Hey, you were the one who started the mud-slinging. Ruby and Python are miles apart as languages (and thank $DEITY for that). - Matt
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only (very minor) drawback is that above haskell scripts when compiled is about 7MB in size, but the huge gain in reliability I think you're somewhat joking about using Haskell, but your script weights: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ ls -lh a.out -rwxr-xr-x 1 egallego egallego 182K 2006-01-30 00:19 a.out This is including all the Haskell runtime. Using a shared runtime would be the optimal solution, as the compiled module is about 9Kb (without stripping): -rw-r--r-- 1 egallego egallego 9652 2006-01-30 00:19 Main.o and stripped: -rw-r--r-- 1 egallego egallego 3584 2006-01-30 00:25 Main.o However, AFAIK GHC doesn't support sharing the runtime. Regards, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either. Nack. Even following the synthetic benchmarks on http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/, they are quite comparable, especially when looking at other candidates: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=alllang=perllang2=ruby For great fun, look at Perl vs. Haskell GHC. -miles -- o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 11:18 +0900, Miles Bader wrote: Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either. Nack. Even following the synthetic benchmarks on http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/, they are quite comparable, especially when looking at other candidates: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all〈=perllang2=ruby For great fun, look at Perl vs. Haskell GHC. Let's implement the boot scripts in GForth!!! http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=alllang=perllang2=gforth -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA He was about as useful in a crisis as a sheep. Dorothy Eden
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 13:35 +0900, Junichi Uekawa a écrit :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2006/01/msg00010.html
I think the conclusion about LD_PATH was
python includes the 'current directory of the executed binary'
ruby includes the 'current directory', thus unsafe.
That's right. Any python script that may be put in an unsafe directory
should first call:
import sys
sys.path.remove('')
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 02:13:57AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le vendredi 27 janvier 2006 à 12:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another scripting language to the set of Essential packages. Personally I don't care about the Essential status. Then what is this whole thread about? However we have to accept the use of python in more base and required packages. This brings python in as a dependency, that's all. But it has the same consequences as making it essential. If, as it has already been suggested, software like init or adduser was replaced by python implementations, would they be rejected? Yes, because python is not Essential. Personally, I'd prefer to throw out perl rather than to add python. Our set of Essential packages is bloated already as it is. Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all over from the start again. I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if people were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming COBOL on VMS. There is a difference between COBOL on VMS and Python vs Ruby. Indeed, there is a very strong following of people programming in Python; but the same is true for Ruby. So why add Python and not Ruby? And where would you stop requesting for more scripting languages to be added? -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 12:47 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : However we have to accept the use of python in more base and required packages. This brings python in as a dependency, that's all. But it has the same consequences as making it essential. If, as it has already been suggested, software like init or adduser was replaced by python implementations, would they be rejected? Yes, because python is not Essential. Oh, so you would reject packages depending on libc6, too? Personally, I'd prefer to throw out perl rather than to add python. Our set of Essential packages is bloated already as it is. Feel free to rewrite the perl parts of all essential packages in C. I think it would be a great improvement nevertheless. There is a difference between COBOL on VMS and Python vs Ruby. Indeed, there is a very strong following of people programming in Python; but the same is true for Ruby. So why add Python and not Ruby? Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more widely spread and used. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:37:23PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 12:47 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : Personally, I'd prefer to throw out perl rather than to add python. Our set of Essential packages is bloated already as it is. Feel free to rewrite the perl parts of all essential packages in C. I think it would be a great improvement nevertheless. I don't have the time to do this, otherwise I would've done so already. There is a difference between COBOL on VMS and Python vs Ruby. Indeed, there is a very strong following of people programming in Python; but the same is true for Ruby. So why add Python and not Ruby? Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more widely spread and used. I disagree. Ruby has one feature that python does not have: Ruby does not require you to use a certain specific coding style. Moreover, Ruby is way more popular in .jp than python is, IIUC. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more widely spread and used. I disagree. Ruby has one feature that python does not have: Ruby does not require you to use a certain specific coding style. This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:14:45PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more widely spread and used. I disagree. Ruby has one feature that python does not have: Ruby does not require you to use a certain specific coding style. This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better, because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:18:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:14:45PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : Because python and ruby have (...) I disagree. (...) This is only (...) maniacs. (...) is better, because (...) Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better, because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me. I think we should instead make 'whitespace' essential: Irregardless of your coding style, it looks the same to the eye, so has the best of both worlds. --Jeroen P.S.: Can we please not go this way? -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better, because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me. Which is globally counterproductive. When you're in a project, you have to deal with the fact other people are working on it as well. That's why large projects like Linux or GNOME require a specific coding style for their contributions. For python-based projects, this isn't even necessary, as most if not all python programmers already use the same coding style. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 19:27 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better, because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me. Which is globally counterproductive. When you're in a project, you have to deal with the fact other people are working on it as well. That's why large projects like Linux or GNOME require a specific coding style for their contributions. For python-based projects, this isn't even necessary, as most if not all python programmers already use the same coding style. Have a look inside the standard library sometime, if you want to get a feeling for just how many styles of programming python programmers use. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better, because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me. Which is globally counterproductive. Whatever. My point was that your perfect language isn't necessarily my perfect language; and while I understand your reasons for wanting Python to be part of base, it would be just asking for a Ruby or Haskell or lisp or whatnot lover to ask for their language of choice to be part of base as well. While I don't like the bloat it brings with it, I can see the point of having a scripting language in base; after all, some things can be coded easier in a scripting language, and bash has nowhere near enough features to fill that purpose. But one scripting language is already more than enough; adding more would be crossing the line between 'sensible compromise' and 'bloat'. I'm sorry perl scares you away; but that's hardly an argument for wanting to have more bloat in base. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
[Josselin Mouette] Because python and ruby have similar features Same with perl and python. and the former is more widely spread and used. Same with perl and python. Actually these days perl and python are fairly evenly split, but even so, there's no need for both. Of 63 config scripts on my system, only 4 are in perl. Of 589 postrm scripts, only 2 are in perl, and they're both Linux kernel images. Apparently good old POSIX shell is good enough for the vast majority of packages. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 17:01 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit : [Josselin Mouette] Because python and ruby have similar features Same with perl and python. Great. I guess you're going to second the upcoming GR that will state that Pi=3 ? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 02:13:57 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all over from the start again. I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if people were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming COBOL on VMS. And if we followed the the line of argument you are pressing uncritically, we'd bloat essential/base with gazillions of interpreters from people too lazy or incompetent to learn the interpreters already in base. If people find Perl too hard (feh), and python too ugly, regressive syntactically, and counter intuitive, and want ruby, or scheme, or haskell, what then? manoj -- What we Are is God's gift to us. What we Become is our gift to God. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:17:43 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Or we can accept python for the same reasons that perl was accepted: it is suitable, enough people like to write scripts in it, and many people expect to be able to use it. We needed _a_ high level language. We have one. There is no need to bloat essential package lists by adding everybodies favourite language du jour. Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people, perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications? Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. Heck no. We definitely need ruby, for the whole OO thang that python messed up ;). And while we are talking OO, how about a teensy smalltalk interpreter? Or how about some haskell, so we can _prove_ maintainer scripts are correct? I mean, surely we can make a strong case for haskell, which is a different kinda beast than procedural languages. Or Scheme. Oooh, scheme. manoj -- Like punning, programming is a play on words. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:42:47 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 20:04 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit : On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and tools that a Debian developer should know to be effective. Despite the days of nightmare I have spent on perl, I couldn't claim to be effective with perl. When I have an issue with a perl script in Debian, I call for help from another developer I can see how you find developing challenging, then. When there are hundreds of developers, you can always find one with the skills and some time to help. This is true the other way round: there are now enough developers skilled with python, so that a developer with a python issue can call for help. Ruby. Scheme. Haskell. (wish java were free). Smalltalk. Ada? Perl is a completely absurd and counter-intuitive language. But python is worse, nyah nyah. God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an exercise in jejune mud slinging. When you're used to clear and strict types, you have to wonder how that dumb software will interpret it and what will happen at each line of code. Writing code in perl is a pain that takes me 10 times longer than writing it in python - for the things I manage to write. I'm not event thinking about understanding most perl scripts out there: the TIMTOWTDI philosophy leads to as many kinds of programming as there are perl programmers. In other words: you cannot only learn perl, you have to think in perl. Which is a very hard task for people used to structured languages. I guess it is mud slinging. manoj too tired to sling mud no mo' -- Tis man's perdition to be safe, when for the truth he ought to die. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:14:45 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more widely spread and used. I disagree. Ruby has one feature that python does not have: Ruby does not require you to use a certain specific coding style. This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. Perl _maniacs_, eh? Gratuitous insults. Hmm. To descend to your level, only python morons would find a style straight jacket better. manoj -- Don't believe everything you hear or anything you say. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:21 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. Perl _maniacs_, eh? Gratuitous insults. Hmm. To descend to your level, only python morons would find a style straight jacket better. Maybe you think that all perl developers are perl maniacs, but this is not what I said. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:19 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : And if we followed the the line of argument you are pressing uncritically, we'd bloat essential/base with gazillions of interpreters from people too lazy or incompetent to learn the interpreters already in base. I prefer to be labeled as incompetent by people like you than to write scripts that no one will be able to understand later. Every time I face a write-once, never change perl script, the only thing to do is to rewrite it. And this isn't a Debian-specific issue. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an exercise in jejune mud slinging. Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot understand won't help your argumentation. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people, perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications? You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't want to waste their time with an inefficient language, you label them as incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than learning perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from people who don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build the best OS out there - only the best perl OS. Heck no. We definitely need ruby, for the whole OO thang that python messed up ;). And while we are talking OO, how about a teensy smalltalk interpreter? Or how about some haskell, so we can _prove_ maintainer scripts are correct? I mean, surely we can make a strong case for haskell, which is a different kinda beast than procedural languages. Or Scheme. Oooh, scheme. Thank you, I too can provide a list of languages. What are you trying to prove? If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist, because these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to support that inclusion. Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in the base system and cannot be currently because Python isn't included? Be specific. A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the way that Python would enter base; without that, I think this discussion is largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into argumentative corners that can only result in hurt feelings. Personally, I write both Perl and Python, and if some fantastic core component of Debian ended up being written in Objective CAML, I think that would be a great excuse to learn Objective CAML. But bickering over which language is best isn't going to get us anywhere. There's a pure resource tradeoff involved, and any language, including Perl, has to pass a cost/benefit analysis that involves real applications we want to run in base. Obviously, once the language is already in base and is already being used, the cost/benefit analysis reverses and one instead starts looking at the cost of removing it. The inherent merits of the language rarely end up being a decisive factor. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:31:58 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:19 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : And if we followed the the line of argument you are pressing uncritically, we'd bloat essential/base with gazillions of interpreters from people too lazy or incompetent to learn the interpreters already in base. I prefer to be labeled as incompetent by people like you than to write scripts that no one will be able to understand later. If the only scripts you can write are write once, then the label sticks. Every time I face a write-once, never change perl script, the only thing to do is to rewrite it. And this isn't a Debian-specific issue. The only thing to do, of course, is to rewrite it _clearly_. The language of implementation of obfuscation is not limited to Perl and python. manoj -- belief, n: Something you do not believe. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:35:08 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or an
exercise in jejune mud slinging.
Deliberate use of words a non-native English speaker cannot
understand won't help your argumentation.
I beg your pardon. I was expecting a modicum of competence,
obviously my trust of such was misplaced. See definition 3 from The
Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
I also strongly advice you to look up the package dict.
manoj
__ dict jejune
4 definitions found
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Jejune \Je*june\, a. [L. jejunus fasting, hungry, dry, barren,
scanty; of unknown origin.]
[1913 Webster]
1. Lacking matter; empty; void of substance.
[1913 Webster]
2. Void of interest; barren; meager; dry; as, a jejune
narrative.
3. Juvenile; childish; immature.
[PJC]
4. Lacking nutritional value.
[PJC] - {Je*junely}, adv. -- {Je*juneness}, n. --Bacon.
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:
jejune
adj 1: lacking in nutritive value; the jejune diets of the very
poor [syn: {insubstantial}]
2: displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; adolescent
insecurity; jejune responses to our problems; their
behavior was juvenile; puerile jokes [syn:
{adolescent}, {juvenile}, {puerile}]
3: lacking interest or significance; an insipid personality;
jejune novel [syn: {insipid}]
From English-Hindi Freedict Dictionary [fd-eng-hin]:
jejune Adj.
1. बहà¥à¤¤~सà¥à¤§à¤¾
Ram is a jejune boy.
2. à¤à¥à¤à¤¦à¥
Ram is a stupid and jejune boy.
From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thesaurus]:
208 Moby Thesaurus words for jejune:
Lenten, Spartan, abstemious, acarpous, ankle-deep, arid, ascetic,
attenuated, austere, banal, barren, blah, bland, blank, bloodless,
cadaverous, celibate, characterless, childless, cold, colorless,
corpselike, cursory, dead, depthless, desert, desolate, dilute,
diluted, dismal, draggy, drained, drearisome, dreary, dried-up,
dry, dryasdust, dull, dusty, dwarfed, dwarfish, effete,
elephantine, emacerated, emaciate, emaciated, empty, empty-headed,
empty-minded, empty-pated, empty-skulled, epidermal, etiolated,
exhausted, exiguous, fade, fallow, flat, flavorless, frugal,
fruitless, gaunt, gelded, gruelly, haggard, heavy, ho-hum, hollow,
hollow-eyed, impotent, impoverished, inane, indifferent,
ineffectual, inexcitable, infecund, infertile, innocuous, insipid,
issueless, knee-deep, leached, leaden, lean, lifeless, light,
limited, low-spirited, marantic, marasmic, meager, mean,
menopausal, mild, milk-and-water, miserly, namby-pamby, narrow,
niggardly, nonfertile, nonproducing, nonproductive, nonprolific,
not deep, on the surface, pale, pallid, paltry, pappy,
parsimonious, peaked, peaky, pedestrian, pinched, plodding,
pointless, poky, ponderous, poor, pulpy, puny, rattlebrained,
rattleheaded, sapless, savorless, scant, scanty, scatterbrained,
scrawny, scrimp, scrimpy, shallow, shallow-rooted, shoal,
shriveled, sine prole, skeletal, skimp, skimpy, skin-deep, slender,
slight, slim, slow, small, solemn, spare, sparing, spiceless,
spiritless, stale, starvation, starved, starveling, sterile, stiff,
stingy, stinted, stodgy, straitened, stuffy, stunted, subsistence,
sucked dry, superficial, surface, tabetic, tabid, tasteless,
tedious, teemless, tenuous, thin, trivial, uncultivated, underfed,
undernourished, unfertile, unflavored, unfruitful, unlively,
unnourishing, unnutritious, unplowed, unproductive, unprofound,
unprolific, unsavory, unsown, untilled, vacant, vacuous, vapid,
virgin, washy, waste, wasted, watered, watered-down, watery, weak,
weazeny, wishy-washy, withered, without issue, wizened, wooden,
wraithlike
--
None love the bearer of bad news. Sophocles
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:44:32 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people, perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications? You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't want to waste their time with an inefficient language, you label them as incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than learning perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from people who don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build the best OS out there - only the best perl OS. The project has elected to use a high level language as essential. It is not necesarrily a language that is everyone's favourite, but it is adequate to the task. You elected to contribute to Debian, instead of Ubuntu, which prefers python (if I understand correctly). It seems like part of the skills you need to develop is learning to package debian -packages using the conventions of the project. You do not _have_ to use Perl -- you can use any language you want, in every maintainer script -- as long as you pre-depend on that language. Not learning the packaging mechanism , or the high level language selected as essential -- is just laziness. Heck no. We definitely need ruby, for the whole OO thang that python messed up ;). And while we are talking OO, how about a teensy smalltalk interpreter? Or how about some haskell, so we can _prove_ maintainer scripts are correct? I mean, surely we can make a strong case for haskell, which is a different kinda beast than procedural languages. Or Scheme. Oooh, scheme. Thank you, I too can provide a list of languages. What are you trying to prove? I wondered if I would have to dot the i's and cross the t's. Since we are talking about adding to the languages whose interpreters are included in Essential packages, and the only argument presented seems to be I am too lazy to learnperl, or Perl is too hard for me, one needs to consider the subjective opiniuons of people who would much rather not touch the nightmare that is python with a 10 foot pole, and would much prefer the sanity of ruby, haskell, smalltalk, or sheme. Since there are few maintainer scripts in any of these languages, and none without pre-depends, I fail to see what makes python stand out (apart from sheer horror of progamming in it, of course ;-). If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist, because these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks. No scripts using python exist either. Even in Ubuntu. manoj -- A good workman is known by his tools. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:42:09 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to support that inclusion. Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in the base system and cannot be currently because Python isn't included? Be specific. And provide some rationale why these scripts can't be rewritten in sh or Perl (or CDBS :). A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the way that Python would enter base; without that, I think this discussion is largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into argumentative corners that can only result in hurt feelings. A killer application that is required by dpkg (which was the original reason for essential) or is needed to install other packages (the old meaning of base). Such beasts are often evolutionary, not revolutionary. Personally, I write both Perl and Python, and if some fantastic core component of Debian ended up being written in Objective CAML, I think that would be a great excuse to learn Objective CAML. But bickering over which language is best isn't going to get us anywhere. There's a pure resource tradeoff involved, and any language, including Perl, has to pass a cost/benefit analysis that involves real applications we want to run in base. Obviously, once the language is already in base and is already being used, the cost/benefit analysis reverses and one instead starts looking at the cost of removing it. The inherent merits of the language rarely end up being a decisive factor. hear, hear. manoj -- BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing. Seymour Papert Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 20:04 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit : On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and tools that a Debian developer should know to be effective. Despite the days of nightmare I have spent on perl, I couldn't claim to be effective with perl. When I have an issue with a perl script in Debian, I call for help from another developer. When there are hundreds of developers, you can always find one with the skills and some time to help. This is true the other way round: there are now enough developers skilled with python, so that a developer with a python issue can call for help. I've learned large chunks of my bash and perl knowledge to reduce this problem in my own work, rather than write it in the language I would have chosen had I been first to the site. While perl has its share of problems, it's not that bad and refusing to work in it is a little absurd. Perl is a completely absurd and counter-intuitive language. When you're used to clear and strict types, you have to wonder how that dumb software will interpret it and what will happen at each line of code. Writing code in perl is a pain that takes me 10 times longer than writing it in python - for the things I manage to write. I'm not event thinking about understanding most perl scripts out there: the TIMTOWTDI philosophy leads to as many kinds of programming as there are perl programmers. In other words: you cannot only learn perl, you have to think in perl. Which is a very hard task for people used to structured languages. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:42:47AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 20:04 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit : On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and tools that a Debian developer should know to be effective. Despite the days of nightmare I have spent on perl, I couldn't claim to be effective with perl. When I have an issue with a perl script in Debian, I call for help from another developer. Same as I do with Python scripts. Although I should add that I have not spent days of nightmare on python. The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another scripting language to the set of Essential packages. Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all over from the start again. Add to that the fact that there are people who'd actually prefer the set of Essential packages to get smaller, not larger (ask on -embedded if you care), and you'll see why a move to add an extra scripting language isn't going to be very popular. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
* Matt Zimmerman: One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. Would this really be a problem if the minimal Python implementation does not install an interpreter under /usr/bin? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matt Zimmerman: One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. Would this really be a problem if the minimal Python implementation does not install an interpreter under /usr/bin? I cannot speak on behalf of upstream on this point; I can only summarize our previous discussions. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT] Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another scripting language to the set of Essential packages. Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all over from the start again. FORTH! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Florian Weimer writes: * Matt Zimmerman: One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. which batteries do you mean? my notebook did ship with a standard and a long-life/extended battery ;) Upstream's batteries include development things as well ([1]), which doesn't really fit Debian's practice to split runtime and development files, and renaming python to python-runtime, python-dev to python doesn't really help. Even the python windows installer offers options to disable the installation of some parts of the package. A proposal was to make a user better aware of differences in packaging, i.e. by hinting to a package when an ImportError exception is raised ([1] as well). Would this really be a problem if the minimal Python implementation does not install an interpreter under /usr/bin? sounds interesting. maybe provide it as /usr/lib/python/bin/python Matthias [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2006/01/msg00135.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le vendredi 27 janvier 2006 à 12:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another scripting language to the set of Essential packages. Personally I don't care about the Essential status. However we have to accept the use of python in more base and required packages. This brings python in as a dependency, that's all. But it has the same consequences as making it essential. If, as it has already been suggested, software like init or adduser was replaced by python implementations, would they be rejected? Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all over from the start again. I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if people were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming COBOL on VMS. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Hi, Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and we can start this all over from the start again. I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if people were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming COBOL on VMS. As long as it's safe to work with a world-writable current directory /tmp, I wouldn't mind either way. http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2006/01/msg00010.html I think the conclusion about LD_PATH was python includes the 'current directory of the executed binary' ruby includes the 'current directory', thus unsafe. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp} Debian Project -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 21:52 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This (...) Boot speed and python does not really sound a match... Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Or we can accept python for the same reasons that perl was accepted: it is suitable, enough people like to write scripts in it, and many people expect to be able to use it. Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:12:35PM +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 21:52 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This (...) Boot speed and python does not really sound a match... Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task. Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 21:46 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : Boot speed and python does not really sound a match... Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task. Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either. It sounds easier to do high level tasks like boot tasks scheduling or intelligent caching in a high level language. The best choice for such a tool would be C, but the speed of the tool itself isn't necessarily the main limitation. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:17:43PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Or we can accept python for the same reasons that perl was accepted: it is suitable, enough people like to write scripts in it, and many people expect to be able to use it. Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and tools that a Debian developer should know to be effective. I've learned large chunks of my bash and perl knowledge to reduce this problem in my own work, rather than write it in the language I would have chosen had I been first to the site. While perl has its share of problems, it's not that bad and refusing to work in it is a little absurd. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Am 2006-01-17 13:28:07, schrieb Adam Borowski: A quick comparison of fresh unconfigured i386 chroots: 94420 woody 146140 sarge 160264 etch 185444 sid a +25MB increase, even though etch is nearly in sync. With standard/important packages, you simply don't install them; removing required/essential ones is not trivial. Extra bloat doesn't noticeably hurt Ubuntu because Ubuntu doesn't try to support memory sticks, old hardware, embedded things or farms of tiny virtual machines; Debian does. No one cares about wasting some memory and disk space on a modern desktop. Not right, because I run automated Backups on all of my 116 Servers, Routers and Workstations and do not like to have some extras to backup which I do not need, not want to have. I realy care about the size of my installed systems. Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Frank_Küster wrote: That sounds good, but wouldn't it be even better to have a symlink /usr/bin/debpython-minimal or so, pointing to the interpreter? Then one could still replace the interpreter by something else (by putting it into /usr/local/bin), for example in order to debug a particularly weird problem in a config script? Or python-minimal could just provide /usr/bin/python-minimal. Then programs with minimal requirements would have #!/usr/bin/python-minimal and their packages would Depend on python-minimal, whereas normal python programs would have #!/usr/bin/python and would Depend on python. Behind the scenes /usr/bin/python would be a symlink to python-minimal but users wouldn't have to know this. The interpreter could even be modified so that it allows only modules from the minimal set to be imported, when run as /usr/bin/python-minimal. Thus if upstream's concern is that users not have a stripped down python, then Debian provides a stripped down python-minimal instead. -- Thomas Hood
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:16:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian does with regard to python-minimal. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and I think I've done that thoroughly now. Are there any examples of .config's or base packages that use python in python? Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in Ubuntu or merely a potential issue. Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Or, we say we aren't going to support *every* high-level language and stick to one. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?) No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to writing any such scripts. Are there .config scripts written in other languages? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:14:19AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: If you won't acknowledge that, then know that upstream also object to the name python-base for something which has a stripped-down standard library. Both pythol-minimal and python-base sound to something an end user would expect to contain a minimal, but working, python environment from end user POV. I would go for a name that clearly discourages an end user from thinking that (python-minlib, python-installerlib ... other better names). Not to mention that description should heavily discourage end users from thinking that way. Suggestion from Thomas Hood seems good to me, that means you are not installing python, just some elements you need, and you are not claiming to have installed python since 'python' is not available as that in the search path. -- Agustin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
#include hallo.h * Thomas Hood [Fri, Jan 20 2006, 10:32:06AM]: Matt Zimmerman wrote: The compromise we struck with upstream was that we would not give the user a system with a broken Python. So upstream objects to the separate packaging of python-minimal unless all of python is installed when python-minimal is installed (which in Ubuntu's case is: always) unless the user takes special action to prevent this. Hmm. Just my 0.02€: that is upstream's deliberate decission, telling you not to use Python for Essential-class code. You simply cannot follow both targets, the most blown full useable environment and slim interpreter. Most of this thread is modern alchemy, trying to cheat / find ways between them but not getting anything right. Sometimes decissions must be made and in this case the rule should be: stick to what you have or make best compromises when integrating new stuff. Since a compromise (reduced python environment) is taboo, just forget it. If we follow the latest shiny tool on the horizont, we should integrate Java and .NET into base. With full dependencies, of course. Eduard. -- Tolimar Statler: Durchsuch mal die fortunes nach Aqua ;) Aqua Tolimar, ich find nichts von den Sachen lustig Aqua ihr habt ja sogar das reingegeben als ich gefragt wurde welche Xfree version ich habe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to writing any such scripts. Are there .config scripts written in other languages? I would expect so, given that there are .config scripts written in Perl in Debian. In krb5-config, for instance, there is a bit of Perl code that parses the default realm out of an existing /etc/krb5.conf file. It's possible to rewrite that code in sed (I've done it), but it's not quite as thorough and it's less maintainable. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to writing any such scripts. Are there .config scripts written in other languages? I would expect so, given that there are .config scripts written in Perl in Debian. In krb5-config, for instance, there is a bit of Perl code that parses the default realm out of an existing /etc/krb5.conf file. It's possible to rewrite that code in sed (I've done it), but it's not quite as thorough and it's less maintainable. Yeah, I know that Debian has them, of course. My question is a little narrower (though I phrased it badly). I'm wondering whether Ubuntu has many .config scripts that it writes, which are written in (say) Perl. Though I think really my principal argument against adding python-minimal to Essential is that there is no way to do it which is not an invitation to users to use it as such (and this is contrary to upstream's ideas of what Python is all about), and even more, that we don't need every scripting language in Essential. We need one, and Perl is decent enough, and we have chosen it and can use it. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in Ubuntu or merely a potential issue. Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Or, we say we aren't going to support *every* high-level language and stick to one. There's nothing that prevents us saying we aren't going to support every high-level language and stick to more than one (we already stick to two -- sh and Perl). It just means I'd like to write scripts in X alone isn't a good enough reason. Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of Python in Essential. The real issue here is that the original upload didn't do that; it went through the motions without actually changing our Python packaging or upgrading the version, so we just got all of Python as Essential. No one wanted that. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This (...) Boot speed and python does not really sound a match... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in Ubuntu or merely a potential issue. Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. Or, we say we aren't going to support *every* high-level language and stick to one. We aren't going to support every high-level language, but we do support more than one in Ubuntu. This, of course, has no particular bearing on whether Debian follows suit. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's nothing that prevents us saying we aren't going to support every high-level language and stick to more than one (we already stick to two -- sh and Perl). It just means I'd like to write scripts in X alone isn't a good enough reason. Yes, this is true. Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of Python in Essential. This does not scale. If each Debian derivative chooses a different official language, and we put each of them in Essential, then we end up with every language in Essential. Debian already *has* an official language for this purpose: Perl. If Ubuntu wants to replace that with Python, it's up to them, but it seems like a lot of work. What I hear is *not* that Python is the official language instead of Perl, but that it is the official language *in addition to* Perl. So now, why? Remember, I'd like to write scripts in X is not a good enough reason, so what is the reason for having two official languages? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that I would like to write scripts in X is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential. It sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood correctly.? Or, we say we aren't going to support *every* high-level language and stick to one. We aren't going to support every high-level language, but we do support more than one in Ubuntu. The question is, why? Is it just we want to use Python too? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that I would like to write scripts in X is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential. It sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood correctly.? I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian does with regard to python-minimal. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and I think I've done that thoroughly now. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that I would like to write scripts in X is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential. It sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood correctly.? I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian does with regard to python-minimal. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and I think I've done that thoroughly now. No, really, I'm trying to understand Ubuntu's reasoning here, and not just the actions undertaken. I understand the actions, but I don't understand exactly what the reasons are, and it would help me. The reasons you gave are different than what Joe Wreschnig said; he spoke of Python being Ubuntu's official language and whatnot, though what he meant is not that Ubuntu has replaced Perl with Python, but that Python has been added in. I can understand We like Python more than Perl, so we replaced Perl with Python, though that would be a lot of work and it isn't what the actual reasoning was anyway. It seems to be simply that one more official language has been added. Personally, I can't stand either Python or Perl. This gives me a different perspective. It's not about liking one or the other, but about the need for Debian to congeal as a whole on a single choice, lest we need to have every choice. So I'm wondering, what are the restraints upon the same things at Ubuntu? Is it just a flat we like Python and Perl and nothing else or is it we add any language that there is demand for among Ubuntu people or what? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Don't reply to me directly. I should not have to tell you this. On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 13:03 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of Python in Essential. This does not scale. If each Debian derivative chooses a different official language, and we put each of them in Essential, then we end up with every language in Essential. We can burn those bridges when we come to them. Right now there's only one such distribution, with one such language, which has already done all the work to strip it down to a small size. Unless you expect some derived Debian distribution to use Scheme some day, this is sophistry. If you really do expect that, it's insanity. What I hear is *not* that Python is the official language instead of Perl, but that it is the official language *in addition to* Perl. So now, why? Remember, I'd like to write scripts in X is not a good enough reason, so what is the reason for having two official languages? I don't manage Ubuntu policy, nor do I want to. I am a Debian developer interested in Debian. The argument for Debian is not I'd like to write scripts in X but There is this large body of people writing scripts in X, and it'd be nice if we could work with them. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
