what next for the pkg_install rewrite

[Ivan Voras]

On 30 August 2010 09:27, Anonymous <swell.k at gmail.com> wrote:

> We can as well use Lua tables to store package database. Their syntax is
> close to JSON.
>
> Besides, I think it's better to divorce ports from base so that pkg_*
> tools can evolve faster and are not limited to dependencies from base.
> The only thing we'd need to leave in base is smth like pkg_bootstrap.
> IMO, this chicken and egg problem is getting quite annoying.

Speaking of Lua, I had a thread on this in -current which went IMO
fairly well, mostly because Lua is a clean and easy language to import
compared to, e.g. Perl, TCL or Python. As I see it, there will not be
heavy opposition if Lua is to be imported.

In short, if there is going to be a scripting language for pkg_*, Lua
is sort-of "pre-approved" - as opposed to ksh and others mentioned
here.