on't solve your problem.
> > >
> > > If python pre-depends on python-minimal (and the rest of the
> > > dependencies
> > > stay in place), then you have the following situation:
> > >
> > > - python2.7-minimal and python-minimal are unpacked (in
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:29:29PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Sunday, November 23, 2014 13:41:47 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > As I understand the situation, that won't solve your problem.
> >
> > If python pre-depends on python-minimal (and the rest of the depe
On Sunday, November 23, 2014 13:41:47 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:06:25PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst , 2014-11-22, 08:25:
> > >>It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a
> > >>new pre-de
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:06:25PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst , 2014-11-22, 08:25:
> >>It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a
> >>new pre-depends on python-minimal in python.
> >>
> >>This issue at hand i
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 05:06:25 PM Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst , 2014-11-22, 08:25:
> >>It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a
> >>new pre-depends on python-minimal in python.
> >>
> >>This issue at hand i
* Wouter Verhelst , 2014-11-22, 08:25:
It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a
new pre-depends on python-minimal in python.
This issue at hand is that at the time python2.7-minimal is
configured, python is unpacked, but python-minimal is not. Since
python-2.7
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:24:00PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a new
> pre-depends on python-minimal in python.
>
> This issue at hand is that at the time python2.7-minimal is configured,
> python
>
nce the dependency chain was
>>>texlive-music -> python -> python2.7-minimal, python is already
>>>unpacked, so the script is available.
>>>
>>>The tricky part is that
>>>/usr/share/python/runtime.d/public_modules.rtinstall needs
>>>/usr
dy
unpacked, so the script is available.
The tricky part is that
/usr/share/python/runtime.d/public_modules.rtinstall needs
/usr/bin/pycompile in order to work. That's in (you guessed it)
python-minimal. It's not available (and there's nothing in policy
that says it has
> python
> -> python2.7-minimal, python is already unpacked, so the script is available.
>
> The tricky part is that /usr/share/python/runtime.d/public_modules.rtinstall
> needs /usr/bin/pycompile in order to work. That's in (you guessed it) python-
> minimal. It'
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 08:28:29 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 18:24:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a new
> > pre-depends on python-minimal in python.
> >
> > This i
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 18:24:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a new
> pre-depends on python-minimal in python.
>
> This issue at hand is that at the time python2.7-minimal is configured,
> python
> is un
It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a new
pre-depends on python-minimal in python.
This issue at hand is that at the time python2.7-minimal is configured, python
is unpacked, but python-minimal is not. Since python-2.7-minimal doesn't have
a direct depen
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:45:26AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>[...] upstream considered it completely unacceptable for anyone to
>ship python in such a state that users would end up with less than the
>full python suite installed on their system. [...]
In fairness, Perl upstream had similar pr
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lintian maintainers, would you be willing to add a check to flag as an
> error any dependency against python*-minimal, based on the above
> explanation by Steve?
We already did for python-minimal. I've expanded that check for
t as Perl. I won't compare
> > > the two, but it's basically the same. And there is python-minimal
> > > and I have heard rumours that it will be in base soon.
> > What? What? What?
> > Can you expand on this rumor (you or someone else)? I was postponing a
> &
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:23:46AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:43:22AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Also note that much of Debian started out as Perl. I won't compare
> > the two, but it's basically the same. And there is python-min
also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.24.0923 +0100]:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:43:22AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Also note that much of Debian started out as Perl. I won't compare
> > the two, but it's basically the same. And there i
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:43:22AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Also note that much of Debian started out as Perl. I won't compare
> the two, but it's basically the same. And there is python-minimal
> and I have heard rumours that it will be in base soon.
What? What? What?
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 02:08:25PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, that's not what I said. The python-minimal package is designed to be
> > used *as* an Essential package, not *by* Essential packages. Nothing,
> >
Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm playing paranoid here, but why don't you want to declare
> dependencies on essential packages?
The short answer is "because Policy 3.5 says they shouldn't." I'm not
positive about the exact rationale, though.
> If the package ceases to be Essent
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, that's not what I said. The python-minimal package is designed to be
> used *as* an Essential package, not *by* Essential packages. Nothing,
> essential or not, should depend on it in Debian, whether or not
> python-minima
n add one; it's not a lot of overhead given that lintian already has
> >>a
> >>framework for checking for bad dependencies. It's basically just another
> >>branch in an if statement.
> >>What's the precise check? Any package depending on pytho
"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed. That's
a b
just another
branch in an if statement.
What's the precise check? Any package depending on python-minimal should
receive an error (or a warning?)
Based on Vorlon's message:
If (package depends on python-minimal) and (package is not essential) then
ERROR.
It's pretty definitely
On Apr 30, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
Yes, it's very annoying that a dependency on another scripting language
was added because of a trivial script.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I guess it's better than letting such bugs go unnoticed.
> I can add one; it's not a lot of overhead given that lintian already has a
> framework for checking for bad dependencies. It's basically just another
> branch in an if statement.
> What's the precise check? A
;s not a lot of overhead given that lintian already has a
framework for checking for bad dependencies. It's basically just another
branch in an if statement.
What's the precise check? Any package depending on python-minimal should
receive an error (or a warning?) with roughly the tex
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
> >> As a result
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
>
>> As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed. That's
>> a bug.
&g
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
> As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed. That's
> a bug.
> alsa-utils should depend on "python | python-minimal", or pe
The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed. That's
a bug.
alsa-utils should depend on "python | python-minimal", or perhaps the
python packages should Provide python-minimal.
Does this seem right?
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.
>
>
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 lan
"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 s
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$I1
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not to day that Python is bad - It has better OO, which Perl
> unfortunately negletted fromt he very starts. Now, talk about Perl OO
> and that's hairy!.
Actually, Python *also* ignored OO at the beginning.
It has grafted it on, but since real OO
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Perl syntax is elegant, efficient and Python's regexp handling is
> nowhere as intuitive as needed for day-to-day tasks where the poer is
> needed.
Efficient, perhaps, but _elegant_?!? HAhahahahah1hahah3$I17-e87
Perl is an utter mess, with a few nice
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 incom
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
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. N
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. N
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 j
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 écr
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, beca
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 discussi
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
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 unders
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 l
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 a
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 PROTE
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
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
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
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, i
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
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.
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
-rwx
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 upcomi
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
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
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 _
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 l
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
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
>> > addus
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 happ
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
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
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 sp
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
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+
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 dictiona
#include
* 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
> > > PROTECTE
#include
* 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 an
#include
* 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
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 sp
[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 trus
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/
[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
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
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
