| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Other distributions are going one step further and are going for |
| 7 |
> shell-free boot. We should follow that lead. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Why? Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own |
| 11 |
parsing and executing, which means they'll need a maintainer just for |
| 12 |
that program and they'll have to go through a few iterations to get the |
| 13 |
initial bugs out, and then people will have to learn how to use the |
| 14 |
different-yet-again language that goes with it. Why not rely on a |
| 15 |
prebuilt parser that devs already have to know to look after ebuilds? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm happy to accept that there might be some very good reasons |
| 18 |
(respawning a shell for each script is time consuming/expensive?), but |
| 19 |
without describing what those reasons are, it's not a direction we |
| 20 |
should just be following blindly... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Mike 5:) |
| 23 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 24 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkxyuXMACgkQu7rWomwgFXrqSwCgjANV5zpo/uYrML+q1mCXHVgI |
| 27 |
ghcAn2oRJMUl4V+L4UHhEABYUs58e9c5 |
| 28 |
=jen/ |
| 29 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives