On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:27:58AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 30 August 2010 09:27, Anonymous <swel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We can as well use Lua tables to store package database. Their syntax is > > close to JSON. > > > > Besides, I think it's better to divorce ports from base so that pkg_* > > tools can evolve faster and are not limited to dependencies from base. > > The only thing we'd need to leave in base is smth like pkg_bootstrap. > > IMO, this chicken and egg problem is getting quite annoying. > > Speaking of Lua, I had a thread on this in -current which went IMO > fairly well, mostly because Lua is a clean and easy language to import > compared to, e.g. Perl, TCL or Python. As I see it, there will not be > heavy opposition if Lua is to be imported. > > In short, if there is going to be a scripting language for pkg_*, Lua > is sort-of "pre-approved" - as opposed to ksh and others mentioned > here.
Lua would make a nice addition for an unrelated reason (I don't follow -current so someone may have mentioned this already): there is an interest in replacing the Forth/FICL pieces of the FreeBSD bootloader with something in Lua instead. Rink Springer and I discussed this (either in Email or on IRC, I forget), and both of us have interest in such. For those curious about Lua, I highly recommend the book "Programming in Lua" (2nd Edition). -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
