From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 15 10:36:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF0137B7F9 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thuvia.demon.co.uk (thuvia.demon.co.uk [193.237.34.248]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F9C442FD for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:24:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk) Received: from dotar.thuvia.org (dotar.thuvia.org [10.0.0.4]) by phaidor.thuvia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6FHIlb49956; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:18:47 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk) Received: from dotar.thuvia.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dotar.thuvia.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6FHIkKC007663; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:18:46 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@dotar.thuvia.org) Received: (from mark@localhost) by dotar.thuvia.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g6FHIkof007662; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:18:46 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:18:46 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Valentine Message-Id: <200207151718.g6FHIkof007662@dotar.thuvia.org> In-Reply-To: Jos Backus's message of Jul 15, 4:38pm X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(5) 10/07/98) To: jos@catnook.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > From: jos@catnook.com (Jos Backus) > Date: Mon 15 Jul, 2002 > Subject: Re: Package system flaws? > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 08:14:08PM +0200, Thomas Seck wrote: > > I think it is good not to have everyones' favourite scripting language in > > the base system. > > I agree. Nowhere did I say we should include all of them (that's what the > ports system is for). I'm saying that the current set of tools in the base is > limiting. I can do a heck of a lot with sh/expr/sed/join/etc (and awk when it gets serious), and I try to stick to the POSIX.2 subset. Beyond that there's a perfectly good C compiler. If I have more specialised needs, I'll be installing third party packages in any case, and I'll pick the tools that work for me. > Unless of course you _define_ the base to consist only of these tools. An individual OS can add whatever frills it wants to the "base" system, but it doesn't mean much to me as a proponent of portable software until all the platforms I support do likewise. > We should pick one that has a reasonable chance of being able to be > supported in the base and stick with it. Well, if we can't handle Tcl in the base system, I doubt much else has a look in... > Perl had build and packaging issues > which made it a nightmare to support, fine, so let's pick another one that > does a better job than awk/sh/etc. I'd like to hear you name one that would fit the bill, never mind find a concensus... Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Valentine, Thuvia Labs "Tigers will do ANYTHING for a tuna fish sandwich." Mark Valentine uses "We're kind of stupid that way." *munch* *munch* and endorses FreeBSD -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message