Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:53:29 -0400 From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) To: Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: markm@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/perl5 Makefile ports/lang/perl5/pkg PLIST Message-ID: <19981012175329.E1157@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <199810120904.CAA20600@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from Satoshi Asami on Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 02:04:43AM -0700 References: <19981012042954.C1296@scsn.net> <199810120904.CAA20600@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 02:04:43AM -0700, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * There may be good reasons to mark this broken, but it seems to me that this
> * is not one of them. When TCL was in the system, we still had a choice...
>
> The situation is different here. Besides, the fact that it doesn't
> build correctly in -current, and it is going to be (more) major work
> for markm to modify the system perl and/or port to not step on each
> other's toes, more than justifies not making it available on -current.
Read what I wrote :-) I'm not disputing that there may be good reasons
for marking this port broken for -current; however, in Marks commit msg, he
says that the port is being marked broken simply because perl5 is present
in the system in -current:
> Perl 5 is in the system. Mark this port broken for 3.0 for that reason.
I just think that it would be nice to have a choice.
I notice, however, that Mark is the perl5 port maintainer as well, so I
guess theres not much chance of the port being better maintained than the
system perl :-)
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?19981012175329.E1157>