Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:48:47 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sperl.. Message-ID: <19970916084847.PG30602@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <341DFCBF.D4D18745@ptway.com>; from Brian Haskin on Sep 15, 1997 23:27:59 -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970915101811.22734A-100000@krusty.the.clown.engelska.se> <19970916013224.LK21199@uriah.heep.sax.de> <341DFCBF.D4D18745@ptway.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Brian Haskin wrote: > Question from a newbie, why haven't we gone over to perl 5 yet in the > base distribution? Because nobody did the deed so far. It sounds simpler than it is, since I) we only want to add about the same amount of bloat^H^H^H^H^H functionality that is already there with Perl 4 (and leave the remainder out in the ports collection), and II) it needs to be converted to use Berkeley make. I think Peter has already done the latter, but i was eager to fix the security bug so Peter isn't pressed to a rushed Perl 5 import by such a constraint. In particular for 2.2-stable, the switch to Perl 5 shouldn't happen, since this is contradictionary to the idea of `stable' (scripts that are in use at a customer's site might break due to the syntax changes). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970916084847.PG30602>