From owner-freebsd-perl@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 17 10:08:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: perl@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D2F106566B; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:08:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4638FC0A; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iwr19 with SMTP id 19so2789925iwr.13 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:08:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ulf7TV06GGfIDsATrxHPvST8uCtKX0j2f74AN7QT0pE=; b=HEvwRfrOf6bmIuHsEitDJ24f0+wgW1z1lzdAbYeOam7GqQwPG49F2tobESxTn1QEp0 dRa4SA9pvSyvVFnrUTIiwocuYrdHbs1c5Wyp+FNbEoeV+9F6rGYtRPxH3yo9P267SnK3 K/Px1gZBRY8NI/j9CNB9zqt6GQa8gS85SuzHw= Received: by 10.231.92.196 with SMTP id s4mr4981897ibm.10.1310897302122; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:08:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.67.211 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:07:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E223112.9050204@FreeBSD.org> References: <20110716212640.GA13201@lonesome.com> <20110717003551.GA17969@lonesome.com> <4E223112.9050204@FreeBSD.org> From: Chris Rees Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:07:52 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: v9FgRQ-mobRxwA74K0d1stLdgjg Message-ID: To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon , perl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: change to bsd.perl.mk X-BeenThere: freebsd-perl@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: maintainer of a number of perl-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:08:24 -0000 On 17 July 2011 01:47, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/16/2011 17:35, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: >>> If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs= ? >>> >>> Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk, or have I mis= sed >>> something? >> >> In a perfect world we'd have -exp runs for everything, I suppose. =A0OTO= H >> here in the real world there's plenty of lower-risk changes that can be >> done without. =A0If in doubt, we can always do one. >> >> Take a look a the various commits in ports/Mk for examples of what's >> been done in the past. > > A) If the file is unconditionally included the idea of administrative > separation is false security. There is no reason that the appropriate > perl folks can't have permission to twiddle that stuff in bpm. > > B) Focusing on this part of the problem detracts from the more important > point that the thing should be conditionally included, and that whatever > needs to be fixed to make that happen should be fixed. > Doug, Am I right in thinking from your comments in the past that you would be willing to form a team to achieve this goal? I think you're right, and it should be done -- count me in. Chris