Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:46:30 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper Message-ID: <200211121746.gACHkUpD021266@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:28:01 PST." <20021112172801.GA60237@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:34:23PM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is > > Kris. > > Why does DES have to be asked? I did the import. It does not matter > where the code came from. Careful. DES put effort into writing that, and throwing it away without so much as a "by your leave" is IMHO rude. As it turns out, his position is pretty clear, but I still want to do this properly. > Do I need to send out a **HEADS UP** to make it absolutely clear what is > being proposed? Or can I move forward working on the theory that working > nice for ports building is sufficient backing? Please send a "HEADS UP" nowish, and do the removal a week after that. There will inevitably be bikeshedding. Please be very gentle. M -- Mark Murray Beware! I'm umop ap!sdn 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?200211121746.gACHkUpD021266>