new sysinstall

[Richard Coleman]

0$269$415eb37d at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <slrnbkvm7b.oig.weingart at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030829184829.2fedd129.cpressey at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200308300659.h7U6xOM0059135 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3f50871c$0$269$415eb37d at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3f50ab95$0$269$415eb37d at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200308302143.h7ULhrtG065363 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <200308302143.h7ULhrtG065363 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <3f512938$0$271$415eb37d at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.98.233.138
X-Trace: 1062283577 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 271 24.98.233.138
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.kernel:761

I think tcl/tk is a good choice for a couple reasons.

1. It is small (compared to perl/python anyways).
2. It is stable and doesn't change as much as perl/python.
3. tk would be good method for installer gui, etc.
4. It is easy to embed and extend.

All the extension to tcl would be in the package system rather
than the base.

I'm generally a fan of tcl/tk, so take my opinion with a grain
of salt.

With that said, I think it is more important that SOME scripting
language (perl/python/icon/tcl/ruby/whatever) be put in the base system
and extensively used, rather than which one is picked.  There are
many languages that would be suitable.  I just happen to think that
tcl is a good choice.  I just hope that Dragonfly can avoid the mishmash
of scripts that are used in FreeBSD.

Richard Coleman
richardcoleman at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     Hmm.  Python is pretty big.  This brings up an issue similar to the
>     'perl in the base system' issue which is whether the base system should
>     contain and depend on fairly large subsystems.  If the installer is 
>     going to be written in python then python would have to be in the base
>     system.
> 
>     On the otherhand it is obvious to me that we want to make X available 
>     out of the box if we can, and X is pretty big too.  I am not against the
>     idea of including Python, but I wonder if something like TCL/TK would be
>     a better solution for the type of GUI interface we will eventually want
>     to have.  I am *NO* expert on Python, perhaps someone can comment on the
>     GUI aspects of Python verses TCL/TK ?
> 
> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>