tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Rewriting pkglint in a portable language

Curious bystander asks:

What is the portability problem with Go?  Go1.4 is C, and bootstraps
Go1.6, but how many architectures/platforms/operating systems does
this not work for out what what pkgsrc supports?  Are there actual
statistics or just rhetoric and guesses?  And the split one for perl
on “non-working ones” would be more meaningful with that info.

Thank you for your time.

William J. Coldwell T:@Cryo G:+Cryo  ARIN:WC25/AS7769 PGP:0x5E994445
Warped, Inc. 661-WARPED1 @warped @deadjournal @tapnet_app
NetBSD Foundation President,Project Security,Social Media
"Put on 3D glasses, otherwise you only see in 1½D.”  [self opinion];

> On Mar 27, 2016, at 12:08 PM, David Holland <> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:33:56PM +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
>> due to ongoing problems with the portability of the Go programming
>> language, I have considered to rewrite pkglint in another programming
>> language.
>> [...]
> Isn't vala dead? That's the impression I've had recently.
> Anyway, the only time performance of pkglint has ever been a
> noticeable issue (for me anyway) is when running it on the whole tree,
> and with one thing and another I think I'm the only person who does
> that anyway.
> It seems to me that for this kind of thing (smallish application
> software where performance isn't critical) the best available
> mainstream choice is Python.
> If you want to use a boutique language there's a number of interesting
> things in lang/, some of which are fairly portable.
> --
> David A. Holland

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index