From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 12 9:49:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDBE37B404; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB59B43E42; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:49:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (uucp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gACHnk5V065955; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:49:46 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with UUCP id gACHnkj0065953; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:49:46 GMT Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimreaper.grondar.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gACHkUpD021266; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:46:30 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Message-Id: <200211121746.gACHkUpD021266@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:28:01 PST." <20021112172801.GA60237@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:46:30 +0000 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:34:23PM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out > > > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it. > > > > Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is > > Kris. > > Why does DES have to be asked? I did the import. It does not matter > where the code came from. Careful. DES put effort into writing that, and throwing it away without so much as a "by your leave" is IMHO rude. As it turns out, his position is pretty clear, but I still want to do this properly. > Do I need to send out a **HEADS UP** to make it absolutely clear what is > being proposed? Or can I move forward working on the theory that working > nice for ports building is sufficient backing? Please send a "HEADS UP" nowish, and do the removal a week after that. There will inevitably be bikeshedding. Please be very gentle. M -- Mark Murray Beware! I'm umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message