Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 5 May 1997 06:54:52 -0400 (EDT)
From:      James FitzGibbon <james@nexis.net>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Use of perl5 "virtual" category.
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970505064809.10060A-100000@nexis.net>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

I just went to check the web index of ports to see the the virtual "perl5"
category had been updated yet, and found that it was.  I also found that a
number of ports were there that didn't seem to make much sense.

It seems that the initial add of ports to this category added anything
that depended on perl5.  When the original discussion came up about the
category, I assumed that people were talking about my perl5 modules, and
the lack of a separate category being annoying to programmer types.

When I first started doing perl5 module ports, I argued with Satoshi to
make a new directory for them.  In the end, we agreed to put them in their
appropriate directories.  Over the next few months, a number of people who
used to modules for programming expressed displeasure with this - they,
like me, knew that they were looking for a perl module, knew it's name,
and wanted a quick way to see if it had been ported.

For this reason, I thought the perl5 virtual category was a great idea.

Take, though, crossfire as an example.  Crossfire is a multi-player arcade
game for X.  It happens to require perl5, and is listed in the perl5
category.  Does that really make sense ?  It would be like me putting
every one of the 800+ ports into lang because "they require some kind of
compiler, don't they?"

The specific ports that fit this category are :

crossfire
gwstat
mailagent
premail
wwwstat

Thoughts ?

--
j.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970505064809.10060A-100000>