Re: More an autopackage

[Geoffrey Wossum]

> I think this need to depend on the configure-generated Makefile will have a
> very constraining effect on the implementation language: this precludes
> using ANYTHING that's not installed standard on any of the expected target
> OSes... That's exactly why configure generates sh-scripts and why libtool IS
> a shell script.

The user will only need autopkg (and Python/Perl/whatever) if they want to
build packages.  They do not need autopkg and its implementation language
if they don't want to do this.  

> You can use GNU m4 or PERL in autoconf and automake, as these are
> maintainer-only tools. If autopackage is a package-installer tool (i.e. a
> native package front-end) the choice of implementation language is almost
> restricted to "/bin/sh" or "/bin/sh" and probably "/bin/sh" :-)

I would imagine that 95% of the people using autopkg would be package
maintainers.  These people probably would install any language required if
it made their job as package maintainers easier.  There will be some
people who want to compile their own stuff, but also want features a
packaging system provides, like dependency tracking and uninstall.  These
people would probably also be willing to install Python or Perl to get the
features.  

---
Geoffrey Wossum
address@hidden