Subject: Re: making 'make replace' safer
To: Greg Troxel <>
From: Peter Schuller <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/16/2006 22:06:35
> > How does that differ from what wip/pkgmanager already does?
> I looked at pkgmanager, and discounted it because it depends on common
> lisp.  I remember also thinking that it didn't do what I want, but now
> I forget - I should look again.

I gotta ask - are a lot of people annoyed by this? I mean from a user's 
perspective. Will many people refuse to use a tool because it's written in a 
language that they for some reason don't want to use?

I have to admit I am leaning towards possibly re-implementing pkgmanager in 
some other language, mostly due to get support for threads, better 
portability and better POSIX integration.

But then the question becomes what language people consider acceptable. If 
it's REALLY REALLY a huge sticking point I *might* be convinced to do it in 
C/C++, but I would *so much* prefer not to. The prime candidate at the moment 
would be Ruby, which seems fairly accepted over in the FreeBSD camp (what 
with portupgrade and such).

Will many people have objections to that? Any opinions? Are there any 
(relevant to this situation) portability issues with Ruby that I am not aware 

If C is an absolute requirement for a tool to be generally accepted - would 
the use of boehm-gc kill off that advantage? Opinions?

/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to
E-Mail: Web: