Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 02:56:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> To: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: perl4 Message-ID: <199603211056.CAA23624@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199603210934.KAA12094@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Mar 21, 96 10:34:14 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > As Tony Kimball wrote: > > > You're saying you're willing to re-write all of the offending > > utilities in C, including the test scripts for xntpd and sendmail? > > > > Do the test scripts really need to be part of the base OS? > > Btw., you've only checked for installed scripts. Do also check out > the Makefiles. I know that i've been using ``perl -e'' in some of the > Makefiles myself. That particular things kinda makes my stomach turn, as it creates yet more cyclic dependincy trees that are very hard to break. Think about what would happen if we did upgrade to perl5 in the base system and now our Makefiles with perl -e in them fall over because they need to be changed. Instant cyclic build problem. Makefiles should be written using a minimal set of tools, not any old thing that happens to be avaliable on the system. If you look at the current toolist required in /usr/src/Makefile it is already way to large and needs some control put on just what we do allow to be used in a Makefile. > I don't believe removing Perl is an option. And, we aren't the only > system that ships Perl as part of the base system. I remember Data > General having it as well, most likely others too. > > -- > 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. ;-) > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603211056.CAA23624>