what next for the pkg_install rewrite

Jeremy Chadwick freebsd at jdc.parodius.com
Mon Aug 30 09:39:34 UTC 2010


On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:27:58AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 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.

Lua would make a nice addition for an unrelated reason (I don't follow
-current so someone may have mentioned this already): there is an
interest in replacing the Forth/FICL pieces of the FreeBSD bootloader
with something in Lua instead.  Rink Springer and I discussed this
(either in Email or on IRC, I forget), and both of us have interest in
such.

For those curious about Lua, I highly recommend the book "Programming in
Lua" (2nd Edition).

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick                                   jdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking                       http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.              PGP: 4BD6C0CB |



More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list