On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 16:44 -0800, David Lutterkort wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 21:42 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:53:09AM -0800, David Lutterkort wrote: > > > > and of course the concern I issued before is that it ties us into yet > > > > another scripting language for systems-maintenance tasks. > > > > > > What exactly is that saying to people who use the ruby that we ship in > > > Fedora ? I understand that there is some concern that another language > > > might cause upgrade problems > > > > No, that's not the issue Seth addresses (I think), and also no > > attribute against the quality of ruby as language and > > implementation. > > > > The question is more like what language are the current and future > > maintainers of the fedora infrastructure comfortable with and would be > > able to do some bug hunting, fixing, changes if required. And of > > course any python solution will have a small bonus here. > > That is understandable (though a little different from the reasons given > a few days ago here) - I hope that phear of ruby won't keep people from > having a look at puppet and comparing its features to bcfg2. > it's not a fear of ruby at all. it's a fear of eventually having admin tools that require specific versions of: python bash ruby java php perl etc etc etc and not being able to more flexibly deploy applications that need to run on those systems. -sv
