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.
>
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 loo
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 Engl
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 p
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
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
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.
--
.''`.
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.
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.
>
>
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"
>> im
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
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
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 a
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/
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: latex-mk
Version : 1.15
Upstream Author : Dan McMahill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/
* License : BSD-like (see below)
Description
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jeremie Corbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: dhcpv6-kame
Version : 20060123
Upstream Author : Kame project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.kame.net/
* License :
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: btscanner
Version : 2.1
Upstream Author : Tim Hurman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://www.pentest.co.uk/cgi-bin/viewcat.cgi?cat=downloads§ion=01_bluetooth
* License : GPL
[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
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
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 lan
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
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 (...) mania
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
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 styl
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
James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:52:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Copyright Notice:
>> > -
>> > Copyright (C) 1992-1996 Gnanasekaran Swaminathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> > Permission is granted
"W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a package that is configured and compiled two times, so
> that two binary packages are built in one dpkg-buildpackage run:
> One with --enable-gnome, the second without. Is this supported
> by CDBS somehow? Is there a package, that already does such
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 s
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:52:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Copyright Notice:
> > -
> > Copyright (C) 1992-1996 Gnanasekaran Swaminathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Permission is granted to use at your own risk and distribute this
> >
Hi,
I have a package that is configured and compiled two times, so
that two binary packages are built in one dpkg-buildpackage run:
One with --enable-gnome, the second without. Is this supported
by CDBS somehow? Is there a package, that already does such a
thing using CDBS? Any hint or example deb
[Same crosspost than last time + debian-devel, but reply-to set to a new
list]
Hello everybody,
following the previous mail on the subject, I revised a bit the proposal
and started to write down the design of the infrastructure.
I also created a mailing list where everybody interested to help sh
Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> 0.6.4 is not being uploaded because it's incompatible with the SQLite version
> available in Debian. As 0.7 is going to be released soon and will be a
> complete rewrite we think it's not worth the effort to try to get 0.6.4
> working.
The next problem is, that the new k
Package: cdebootstrap
Version: 0.3.9
Hi,
I've found out that cdebootstrap is diverting invoke-rc.d too late,
and it's letting initscripts run mountvirtfs.
initscripts 2.86.ds1-11 in unstable is running mountvirtfs, it is
probably calling invoke-rc.d, but there is no policy-rc.d at that
time, a
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 t
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', thu
On Friday, 27 January 2006 23:04, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> kamaraju kusumanchi a écrit :
> > Can someone tell me about the current status of kat in Debian? There
> > were multiple ITPs filed at some point of time
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=309068
> >
> > http://bugs.debia
36 matches
Mail list logo
