On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/08, Martin Marcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there any chance realistic chance that python will be part of the obsd
default at some point in the forseeable future?
No.
unless perhaps a new developer [messiah]
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 07:39:34PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
A final word.
For all you backseat drivers: this is OpenBSD.
Those who do the work get to call the shots.
In reading the thread, I don't get the impression
* comfooc [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-24 11:29]:
What about python? I think that it's license is better (but i might be wrong).
it
is
not in
base
and the people
in
charge don't
like
Douglas == Douglas A Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Douglas Of course, without an actual here's-my-problem issue to discuss, its
Douglas philosophical and hypothetical which allows us to argue over the
Douglas periphery instead of the core issue.
Douglas Is there any scenario where one could
On 5/24/08, Martin Marcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about the python license?
How about them Yankees?
Given that is
there any chance realistic chance that python will be part of the obsd
default at some point in the forseeable future?
No.
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 08:20:50PM -0400, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
perl offers faster software development. perl is not fast. Just
saying. Althought, I think that's what you meant too.
# sysctl hw.model hw.physmem
hw.model=SUNW,SPARCclassic, TMS390S10 @ 50 MHz, on-chip FPU
Hi,
What about python? I think that it's license is better (but i might be wrong).
Cheers.
comfooc ha scritto:
Hi,
What about python? I think that it's license is better (but i might be wrong).
Cheers.
Please... Read all threads before writing
Developers make choices... Marc choice perl stop. Perl is in base and he
know perl, so for a silly sillogism, Marc use perl for
2008/5/24 comfooc [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
What about python? I think that it's license is better (but i might be wrong).
What about reading the entire thread?
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=121155084515533w=2
--
We spend the first twelve months of our children's lives teaching
them to walk
Sorry, but I've clearly misphrased my question and might be a little
offtopic. I should ask if python has better license than perl from
OpenBSD perspective.
Once again sorry.
Cheers.
comfooc == comfooc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
comfooc Sorry, but I've clearly misphrased my question and might be a little
comfooc offtopic. I should ask if python has better license than perl from
comfooc OpenBSD perspective.
If you're serious, the answer is no. They're roughly equivalent.
Hello,
How about the python license? Not that I'm really capable of rewriting
and/or patching the pkg_* tools but from a license point of view I
think that the license under which python is distributed is quite
similiar to a BSD license. Especiall this:
GPL-compatible doesn't mean that we're
Martin Marcher wrote:
License is here: http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.5/license/
http://www.python.org/download/releases/version/license/
Yeah, that's exactly like the BSD license, elegant and simple.
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 06:23:23PM +0200, Martin Marcher wrote:
Hello,
How about the python license? Not that I'm really capable of rewriting
and/or patching the pkg_* tools but from a license point of view I
think that the license under which python is distributed is quite
similiar to a
A final word.
For all you backseat drivers: this is OpenBSD.
Those who do the work get to call the shots.
I did get permission from my fellow developers to switch our pkg_* to
perl once I made a strong enough argument.
A huge part of the argument was the actual code. I did write tools that
* Martin Marcher wrote:
Hello,
How about the python license? Not that I'm really capable of rewriting
and/or patching the pkg_* tools but from a license point of view I
think that the license under which python is distributed is quite
similiar to a BSD license. Especiall this:
do you
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 08:06:59AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 07:55:48PM -0500, Adam Patterson wrote:
Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 03:23:17PM +, hyjial wrote:
Anyway, perl is distributed under the artistic license, yet the
pkg-tools are
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 07:39:34PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
A final word.
For all you backseat drivers: this is OpenBSD.
Those who do the work get to call the shots.
In reading the thread, I don't get the impression that anyone is
second-guessing just that people thought it an interesting
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 04:40:05PM -0400, Jeremy Huiskamp wrote:
On 23/05/08 04:21 PM, Han Boetes wrote:
Yes but C is written in gcc which is GNU licensed and pkg_utils
are written in perl which is a much more libaral language. I
really start wondering why the whole of OpenBSD is not rewritten
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 07:55:48PM -0500, Adam Patterson wrote:
Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 03:23:17PM +, hyjial wrote:
| Hi list !
| Reading through OpenBSD's codebase, I have noticed that the code
| living
| under src/usr.sbin/pkg_add is written in Perl. Perl is
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 03:23:17PM +, hyjial wrote:
Hi list !
Reading through OpenBSD's codebase, I have noticed that the code
living
under src/usr.sbin/pkg_add is written in Perl. Perl is distributed
under the Artistic license, though. The latter is not as permissive
as the BSD
license
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as perl goes, it's about the only language that fit the bill.
The older pkg_* were totally impossible to maintain and extend, and
I needed a sensible script language that was in base.
at the risk of starting a flame
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 01:42:05PM +0200, Almir Karic wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as perl goes, it's about the only language that fit the
bill. The older pkg_* were totally impossible to maintain and
extend, and I needed a sensible
* Almir Karic wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as perl goes, it's about the only language that fit the bill.
The older pkg_* were totally impossible to maintain and extend, and
I needed a sensible script language that was in base.
at the
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Marc Balmer wrote:
or maybe I should write my next radio clock driver in forth, I heard it is
fast and small, so I am sure it is the right tool for drivers...)
YES!
Marc if you put forth in base and started writing all your drivers in
forth I'd buy you some fondue.
Paul == Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul [Perl is not BSD licensed] What technical reasons have lead the
Paul developers to elect this language ?
I think you'll find that the Artistic License (especially 2.0) is roughly the
same level of liberation as the BSD license. I'd be hard
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 01:42:05PM +0200, Almir Karic wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as perl goes, it's about the only language that fit the bill.
The older pkg_* were totally impossible to maintain and extend, and
I needed a sensible
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 07:16:03AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Marc Balmer wrote:
or maybe I should write my next radio clock driver in forth, I heard it is
fast and small, so I am sure it is the right tool for drivers...)
YES!
Marc if you put forth in base and
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 07:16:03AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Marc Balmer wrote:
or maybe I should write my next radio clock driver in forth, I heard it is
fast and small, so I am sure it is the right tool for drivers...)
YES!
Marc if you put forth in base and
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Marc Espie wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 07:16:03AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Marc Balmer wrote:
or maybe I should write my next radio clock driver in forth, I heard it is
fast and small, so I am sure it is the right tool for drivers...)
Yes but C is written in gcc which is GNU licensed and pkg_utils
are written in perl which is a much more libaral language. I
really start wondering why the whole of OpenBSD is not rewritten
in perl!
# Han
On 23/05/08 04:21 PM, Han Boetes wrote:
Yes but C is written in gcc which is GNU licensed and pkg_utils
are written in perl which is a much more libaral language. I
really start wondering why the whole of OpenBSD is not rewritten
in perl!
# Han
Ah, but perl is compiled with gcc, so that
Wow, this thread has turned from stupid - abusive - just plain old hilarious.
- Original Message
From: Jeremy Huiskamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: misc@openbsd.org
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 4:40:05 PM
Subject: Re: Why Perl for pkg_* tools ?
On 23/05/08 04:21 PM, Han Boetes wrote:
Yes but C
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 11:32:04PM +0200, Mic J wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Christer Solskogen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hyjial wrote:
Her is an interview with Espie
It contains many hints to research from
I also thought Espie said that perl enabled them to do some stuff that
Hi list !
Reading through OpenBSD's codebase, I have noticed that the code
living
under src/usr.sbin/pkg_add is written in Perl. Perl is distributed
under the Artistic license, though. The latter is not as permissive
as the BSD
license under which monst of OpenBSD is released. No doubt
that is the
On Thu, 22 May 2008, hyjial wrote:
I am just curious about the fact and
didn't manage to find information
in tech@ and mis@ archives.
Thanks in
advance.
Hyjial.
You didn't try very hard then. This has been discussed on many
occasions.
g.day
hyjial wrote:
What technical reasons have lead the
developers to elect this
language ?
If you dislike it so much, why don't you rewrite pkg_* in C, and submit
patches?
--
chs
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Christer Solskogen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hyjial wrote:
What technical reasons have lead the
developers to elect this
language ?
Her is an interview with Espie
It contains many hints to research from
I also thought Espie said that perl enabled them to do
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 03:23:17PM +, hyjial wrote:
| Hi list !
| Reading through OpenBSD's codebase, I have noticed that the code
| living
| under src/usr.sbin/pkg_add is written in Perl. Perl is distributed
| under the Artistic license, though. The latter is not as permissive
| as the BSD
|
Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 03:23:17PM +, hyjial wrote:
| Hi list !
| Reading through OpenBSD's codebase, I have noticed that the code
| living
| under src/usr.sbin/pkg_add is written in Perl. Perl is distributed
| under the Artistic license, though. The latter is not as
40 matches
Mail list logo
