bcfg2

[seth vidal]

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