From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Feb 26 11:33:49 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA27636
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from veda.is (ubiq.veda.is [193.4.230.60])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA27628
          for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:33:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.8.4/8.7.3) id TAA00656; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:45:34 GMT
From: Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Message-Id: <199702261945.TAA00656@veda.is>
Subject: Re: Perl5 modules
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970226114649.25055Q-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> from John Fieber at "Feb 26, 97 11:48:44 am"
To: jfieber@indiana.edu (John Fieber)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:45:33 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: paul@demon.co.uk, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Why not simply bundle them all together in ports/pl/ and of course strip p5-
> > from the names. (ports/p5/ if preferred)
> 
> Need the name be so obtuse?  We may as well waste an extra couple
> bytes and call it "perl" instead of "p".
> 
> -john
> 

Exactly my first thoughts on the subject, but then some might push to move
the perl port itself into there, which would be wrong.

perl is a fine choice, so long as people understand that it is intended only
for perl5 scripts.

Adam