Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 7 May 2002 19:59:23 -0400
From:      Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <p05111741b8fe1762722a@[128.113.24.47]>
In-Reply-To: <200205072309.g47N9JA2001180@apollo.backplane.com>
References:  <200205072241.g47Mf0jV002339@grimreaper.grondar.org> <200205072309.g47N9JA2001180@apollo.backplane.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:09 PM -0700 5/7/02, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>:3) Ditch perl from the base system completely, and rely on
>:   the ports system for FreeBSD's perl requirements.
>:   PRO: Speed up "make world", debloat source tree, prevent
>:        many cross-build breakages.
>:   CON: No high-level scripting system in the tree by default
>:        (need to install a port to get one). The ports
>:        collection will need some work to handle this.
>:   I've tested a build of this, including kernel. Some apps
>:   (like sockstat) break. I could commit this if it is wanted.
>
>     Assuming the base utility issues can be addressed, I would
>     go for #3.

I prefer #3 too.

>     If this cannot be accomplished  then I would recommend
>     keeping an unadorned perl in the base system but calling
>     it something else, like resurrecting the notion of
>     'miniperl' and having the base utilities that use perl
>     explicitly specify /usr/bin/miniperl, and not having
>     a /usr/bin/perl in the base system at all... kind of a
>     modified #3.

I would also be happy with this tactic.  Another advantage of
this tactic is that developer who does change any of these
base-system perl scripts will be forced to do it in exactly the
same environment as the base system.  Ie, they will not make a
change which happens to work on their system only because they
already have some group of libraries installed (from a port).

If there is any perl in the base system, it should be one which
is not AT ALL effected by any perl-related ports.  The more I
think about this, the more I am convinced this idea of separation
is the right idea.  (assuming we have any perl in the base-OS)

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu

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?p05111741b8fe1762722a>