Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 13:23:53 +0200 From: Anton Berezin <tobez@tobez.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Head's up: NO_PERL -> NO_PERL_WRAPPER Message-ID: <20020609112353.GE25520@heechee.tobez.org> In-Reply-To: <3D033825.C024679E@FreeBSD.org> References: <3D032261.8CB94725@FreeBSD.org> <20020609105353.GD25520@heechee.tobez.org> <3D033825.C024679E@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 04:12:37AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Anton Berezin wrote: > > The compatibility is a moot point either way, since there was no NO_PERL > > knob - it used to be called NOPERL. > > It's NOPERL in -stable, but it was NO_PERL in -current when I changed it > to NO_PERL_WRAPPER. My point was that it *was* NOPERL in -current before the removal of perl. But I see you handle this case in your patch to use.perl, so no argument here. > > That's fine, but I am still trying to understand why do we need a > > wrapper at all. As was indicated (on IRC, not sure it was mentioned in > > the mail threads), the ability to launch /usr/bin/perl with no perl in > > the system is different from the inability to launch anything at all. > Personally, I don't think we need a wrapper, as long as the use.perl > script knows how to DTRT. My point exactly. > However, given that currently we have a wrapper I thought fixing > use.perl to handle it was reasonable. The keyword here is `currently'. :-) Cheers, \Anton. -- | Anton Berezin | FreeBSD: The power to serve | | catpipe Systems ApS _ _ |_ | http://www.FreeBSD.org | | tobez@catpipe.net (_(_|| | tobez@FreeBSD.org | | +45 7021 0050 | Private: tobez@tobez.org | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020609112353.GE25520>