[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: portability of xargs
From: |
Mike Frysinger |
Subject: |
Re: portability of xargs |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:51:50 -0500 |
On 15 Feb 2022 20:25, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> > Meson is a candidate for such a next-gen config system. It is in python,
> > which does not quite qualify as usable during early uplift/bootstrap, but
> > there are C ports in progress, see e.g. https://sr.ht/~lattis/muon/
>
> *Please* do not introduce a dependency on Python; they do not worry much
> about backwards compatibility. If there is ever a Python 4 with a 3->4
> transition anything like the 2->3 transition, you could end up with
> every past release relying on current Python becoming unbuildable.
Python 3.0 isn't even compatible with Python 3.10 in some ways. it's a
sliding window of time/releases, not a major version skew.
> Having complex dependencies for creating the build scripts is one thing,
> but needing major packages (like Python) to *use* the build scripts is a
> serious problem for anything below the "user application" tier,
> especially the "base system" tier.
yeah, i see no path forward for requiring Python in the generated configure
or Makefile.in files. i wouldn't feel as bad about replacing the current
perl code with python to run `automake`, but i don't think the current set
of Automake maintainers would agree :).
-mike
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: portability of xargs, Daniel Herring, 2022/02/15
Re: portability of xargs, Jan Engelhardt, 2022/02/15
Re: portability of xargs, Nick Bowler, 2022/02/15