John Belmonte wrote:
> All those points are well taken. I was trying to pull a fast one:
> surely no one would notice a few files added to base which total 1/3rd
> the size of bash itself. But I've been caught.
I hope you realize that the perl-base package is itself hardly larger
than bash.
-
Colin Watson wrote:
You haven't challenged it successfully, then; to my knowledge, my
statement is correct for the current base system, which is what it was
referring to.
I don't necessarily oppose tiny languages such as Lua, but perhaps
somebody should write the tools in question in them first, ot
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:42:05PM -0400, John Belmonte wrote:
> Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> >Because of how powerful is Perl? Because of the amount of things that
> >depend on Perl that currently exist and would be a waste of time to
> >rewrite? Because Perl might be the best tool for many cases? There a
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> John Belmonte dijo [Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 10:20:59AM -0400]:
> > Lua is a modern high-level language. Its 15K stand-alone interpreter
> > depends on only two libraries which total less than 200K. The
> > functionality of its standard
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Because of how powerful is Perl? Because of the amount of things that
depend on Perl that currently exist and would be a waste of time to
rewrite? Because Perl might be the best tool for many cases? There are
many possible answers...
Not that coding in Lua, scsh or similar tools
John Belmonte dijo [Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 10:20:59AM -0400]:
> Lua is a modern high-level language. Its 15K stand-alone interpreter
> depends on only two libraries which total less than 200K. The
> functionality of its standard libraries are limited by ANSI C, but there
> are are third party li
Only on a well-written OS... ;)
Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 01:01:52AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Well-written C++ using well tested class libraries tend to do a pretty
good job, security-wise.
I often find that well written code does a good job.
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:18:45PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Saying "well-written" is cheating. Any well written program is always
> good by definition or it is not be well written. But what about
> poorly written cruft? Almost all languages are easy to write badly.
> But some are easier than
Marc Haber wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >I'd rather that the tools in Debian base were written in a high-level
> >language where available. Take away Perl and you've got only shell, C,
> >and C++ left; I don't think that's going to improve security in
> >practice.
>
> Well-written C++ using well
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 01:01:52AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Well-written C++ using well tested class libraries tend to do a pretty
> good job, security-wise.
I often find that well written code does a good job.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:54:50 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'd rather that the tools in Debian base were written in a high-level
>language where available. Take away Perl and you've got only shell, C,
>and C++ left; I don't think that's going to improve security in
>practice.
Well
On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 12:41, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:58:46 -0500, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >But it would not be nice to not have the things that would leave with it
Colin Watson wrote:
I'd rather that the tools in Debian base were written in a high-level
language where available. Take away Perl and you've got only shell, C,
and C++ left; I don't think that's going to improve security in
practice.
Lua is a modern high-level language. Its 15K stand-alone interp
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:41:56PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:58:46 -0500, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >But it would not be nice to not have the things that would leave with it.
>
> Generally, it would be a good thing to have Debian base installable
> without
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:58:46 -0500, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But it would not be nice to not have the things that would leave with it.
Generally, it would be a good thing to have Debian base installable
without perl. That way, security-aware administrators would have the
right to ch
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Some of us would like to see Perl taken out of base as well :)
Marc writes:
> That would be an awfully nice thing to have.
But it would not be nice to not have the things that would leave with it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmw
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:49:40 +0100, Scott James Remnant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Some of us would like to see Perl taken out of base as well :)
That would be an awfully nice thing to have.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Ha
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 09:49, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:16:28AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > i have developed a system in python which abstracts from the backend too.
> > moreover it is easily expandable with python plugins. it is also easy to
> > develop new applicati
Colin Watson writes:
> That would mean we'd have to add python to the base system.
I'd _really_ rather not see that. While I now use Python in preference to
Perl, I don't think its advantages justify bloating base. Perl's just
another procedural language.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:16:28AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:02:38AM +0200, Roland Bauerschmidt wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer has done some nice work in abstracting the passwd storage
> > backend, and adding methods for LDAP storage. The latter, though, still
> > need
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:02:38AM +0200, Roland Bauerschmidt wrote:
> The number of bugs on the adduser package has constantly increased for
> the last few months, though none of them is release critical. Since I
> was busy with other stuff (mostly OpenLDAP and related stuff) I didn't
> keep up wi
The number of bugs on the adduser package has constantly increased for
the last few months, though none of them is release critical. Since I
was busy with other stuff (mostly OpenLDAP and related stuff) I didn't
keep up with all the feature requests and non-critical bugs. This is
also partly due to
22 matches
Mail list logo
