Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:41:40 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, des@FreeBSD.ORG, tobez@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper Message-ID: <p05200f18b9f84bca7aba@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <3DD1EE5E.E268055A@FreeBSD.org> References: <20021107014750.GA18398@rot13.obsecurity.org> <200211080858.gA88wiCE029745@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20021112101236.GB8744@dragon.nuxi.com> <3DD1EE5E.E268055A@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:17 PM -0800 11/12/02, Doug Barton wrote:
>David O'Brien wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +0000, Mark Murray wrote:
>> > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
>> > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
>> > instead.
>>
> > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't
> > working out for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it.
>
>In case another vote is needed, I've always been opposed to the
>wrapper. tobez and I put some work into getting the use.perl
>script in the port to DTRT shortly after the demise of base perl,
>and I'm still willing to help fine tune it if needed.
For what it's worth, I still think the idea of a wrapper is a
good idea, if it was done right. I do agree that the current
implementation isn't quite good enough. But first, to look at
the issue that started this thread:
enigma# make -V BUILD_DEPENDS
perl5.6.1:/usr/ports/lang/perl5
However 5.0 has perl5.6.1 in the base system still, so
this dependency is always satisfied, the perl port is
never added and the port build that relies on it will fail.
[Does the build really require 5.6.1, or would other versions of
perl5 also work?]
Kris complained that there is a wrapper in /usr/bin/perl5.6.1.
When people are voting, are they voting to remove just that wrapper,
or do they want to remove wrappers for all versions? (I just want
to be sure no one is surprised by their vote being taken in some
way other than how they meant it) I assume everyone so far has
been voting on getting rid of all the perl wrappers.
I do have ideas for how the perl wrapper could be made better and
more useful, but obviously there is nothing I can do which will fix
any process who merely checks for the existence of a file to make
its decision. I'm also well aware that there are a number of
developers who wouldn't like a wrapper, no matter how it worked.
So, I vote for improving the wrapper instead of removing it, but
wouldn't want to spend much time debating it. I'll also agree that
it might be a little late in this release cycle to try and come up
with a great wrapper, even if everyone loves the idea.
[note: RPI has been using a wrapper for perl and other scripting
languages for more than 10 years now, which is why I think a wrapper
can be useful if it is done correctly]
--
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?p05200f18b9f84bca7aba>