[lsb-discuss] Looking for comments on Perl, Python (and why not TCL, Ruby, PHP, etc.)

[Scott Baeder]

As an ISV, I would wonder WHY others are asking for it?  We have to ship our own copies "embedded" in the software tree we deliver, but I think that is partially because we need specifics (modules, etc.)  And as pointed out, it's pretty hard to "nail down" a P*SB (Perl/Python Standard Base ;-)
 
So, Along with ISV "requests", we should be collecting some concrete "WHY" they are asking for it.
 
Scott
 

________________________________

From: lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org on behalf of Sam Hart
Sent: Wed 6/6/2007 11:14 AM
To: lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
Subject: Re: [lsb-discuss] Looking for comments on Perl,Python (and why not TCL, Ruby, PHP, etc.)



On 6/5/07, Andy Armstrong <andy at hexten.net> wrote:
> Perl is legendarily unspecified. Perl has always been defined as
> whatever perl understands.
>
> So I understand and agree with your concerns.

I think, for the most part, most engineers would agree with these
concerns. The trouble comes in when ISVs start asking for Perl and
Python.

I guess what really needs to be answered more specifically than "how
would these languages being in the LSB help" would be "what exactly
would ISVs expect from Perl/Python/etc being in the LSB"?

E.g., is there some expectation of Perl/Python/etc. becoming more
(forgive the term) stable with respect to API changes? Or would
something *very* general like "will have /usr/bin/perl" sufficient for
their needs?

The former is not going to happen due to the nature of these languages
(and really, as was pointed out elsewhere, you might not *want* this
to happen). The latter, while semi-useless from an engineering
perspective, may be more of more use marketing-wise.

_______________________________________________
lsb-discuss mailing list
lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss