From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Mar 20 08:36:53 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA13432
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA13422
          for <current@freefall.freebsd.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:36:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA00990; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:36:01 -0800 (PST)
To: Tony Kimball <alk@Think.COM>
cc: gclarkii@main.gbdata.com, current@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: perl4 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:25:24 CST."
             <199603201625.KAA20041@compound> 
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:36:01 -0800
Message-ID: <988.827339761@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>    Of course not, it's not required for anything.  Perl is.  
> 
> And in case you missed it, I offer to fix that by my sweat.
> 
>    Case dismissed.
> 
> Appeal filed.

You're saying you're willing to re-write all of the offending
utilities in C, including the test scripts for xntpd and sendmail?

Isn't this something of a waste of effort just to get rid of one lousy
package?  I mean, I appreciate the hardship you're willing to go
through just to improve the purity of our codebase, but I wonder if
such energies wouldn't be more profitably applied to something that's
more seriously broken.

					Jordan