1 |
I can see your point. But there would, I believe, be very deliberate |
2 |
measures taken to ensure that the use of python in initscrits, since this |
3 |
is how the discussion started, did not result in a kind of python lock- |
4 |
down of Gentoo. |
5 |
|
6 |
>From my own point of view, the underlying theme of the idea is the |
7 |
concept of a more "extensible" shell. Sh would remain the default |
8 |
required language of the shell environment. It is a poewrful and widely |
9 |
shared tool and remove it would be self-defeating. But the optional |
10 |
inclusion of the Python-style shell syntax or dialect at build time, and |
11 |
later thru interactive activation/deactivation switches at the prompt and |
12 |
in scripts, would mean that python shell environment could be switched |
13 |
on and off at will, could be used in a mixed environment with sh, and of |
14 |
course could be unmerged and compiled out at any time. That the |
15 |
portage tree should have been written in python is perhaps a sign of |
16 |
Gentoo's progressive streak, but yes, non-python portage is a real |
17 |
possibility as could multi-language, selectable portage in the future. |
18 |
|
19 |
The issue is not really about using Python per se. Python is already a |
20 |
large part of Gentoo and is, in many senses, relatively accessible to |
21 |
the wider community (I know that argument is all much of a |
22 |
muchness). Maybe the extensible shell could evolve to provide |
23 |
support for other languages. As an anchor in our debate, and as a |
24 |
reference, isn't tcsh an example of the spirit of an extensible shell? |
25 |
Here we have C-like syntax operating at the shell level messaging the |
26 |
kernel. Performance benefits of the C language itself on one side, isn't |
27 |
this (in a more developed [meaning, dynamic rather than static] form) |
28 |
the kind ofthing we are talking about? |
29 |
|
30 |
Would not the future look, in these circumstances, something like a |
31 |
world in which the gentooer, at build time, could select to have a shell |
32 |
(with default sh) augmented with one or more language-dialects |
33 |
(syntax libraries, say Perl, Python and Ruby, or even JS and |
34 |
PHP...what the heck?!) of his/her choice for interactive use in the shell |
35 |
environment? |
36 |
|
37 |
On 17 Apr 2003 at 8:45, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
38 |
|
39 |
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:44:28PM -0700, Abhishek Amit wrote: |
40 |
> > If you run gentoo python is a requirment that you can not avoid in any |
41 |
> > way. Portage is completly python. So I don't really see how python could |
42 |
> > be too heavy unless you mean specifically for running these scripts. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Portage is completely python, yes, but you cannot know what the future will |
45 |
> hold. I've personally already been working on a Gentoo-without-Portage (well, |
46 |
> if you can still call it Gentoo that is :) for fun. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Creating the initscripts in Python will force you to stick with Python as a |
49 |
> primary dependency, even if the Gentoo developers someday would say "hey, |
50 |
> perhaps we can make a Gentoo-project with a C-coded Portage". |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Wkr, |
53 |
> Sven Vermeulen |
54 |
> |
55 |
> -- |
56 |
> Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. |
57 |
> |
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
-- |
61 |
Merv Hammer |
62 |
mailto: merv@×××××××××××××.cy |
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |