Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:54:55 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org, Joerg Wunsch <joerg@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/perl pathnames.h perl.c Message-ID: <p05111706b98afda99f25@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20020822190049.GB52402@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200208212054.g7LKsja8062092@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020822083848.GJ71936@starjuice.net> <20020822190049.GB52402@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:00 PM -0700 8/22/02, David O'Brien wrote: >On Thu, Aug 22, 2002, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > Modified files: >> > usr.bin/perl perl.c >> > Added files: >> > usr.bin/perl pathnames.h >... > > Does the continued maintenance of this utility mean that those > > of us who objected to its existence have lost, or is it still > > just an interim solution that might not exist in 5.0-RELEASE? > >In my opinon what we are missing is someone to take the lead on >this and determine what is best for us. This perl wrapper, or >overloading mailwrapper (which probably would be even better as >it won't depend on $PATH) were stabs in the dark as no one was >taking the lead on the issue (or making use.perl work at the >time) to see it thru to completion. > >Any takers? Early in the "let's write a wrapper" process I tried to wave a flag around saying that here at RPI we have had a wrapper-program that we've used for several shells (including perl) on several platforms in a production mode (ie, with real users) for about ten years. Most of the replies I got were negative, saying that "the next version" of whatever so-and-so was working on was going to fix all known problems. I tried again later in the thread, and had a productive exchange with a few people (whose names I now forget...), where we came to the conclusion that maybe my ideas should be done as a separate port, instead of putting them into the base system. Some days that does seem like the right answer to me, and other days it does not. It was about then that my appendix started flaring up enough that I could not continue to ignore it, and I was also having too many headaches trying to run -current. I certainly didn't feel like arguing about the status of perl on -current, and it was clear to me that no matter *what* anyone proposed, there would be other developers who would argue vehemently against that proposal. I'm still in recovery-mode on my surgery, but I am almost back so I can run 5.0-current (instead of 5.0-from-April). Assuming that I survive the upcoming week (which is the first week of classes here at RPI), I would be willing to come up with something and try to get some consensus on it. -- 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 cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05111706b98afda99f25>