From owner-freebsd-bugs Sat Nov 15 08:57:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA18009 for bugs-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:57:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs) Received: from hwcn.org (main.hwcn.org [199.212.94.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA18003 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:57:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hoek@hwcn.org) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (ac199@james.hwcn.org [199.212.94.66]) by hwcn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29695; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA06726; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:58:25 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca: ac199 owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:58:24 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek X-Sender: ac199@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca To: Evan Champion cc: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/5050: upgrade perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Evan Champion wrote: > I just report the problem. Am I supposed to do everything? If I was > interested in doing that I'd get CVS update access and do it myself. Hehe. It's not a problem. The current versions work just fine. It's a feature-request. I can think of many more similar problems which are actually feature-requests. Ultimitely, if I want these features, it does amount to doing what you said: "getting CVS update access and doing it yourself"... Except, you don't want the CVS part unless you want even more work for youself... :) Including the diffs necessary and bmakefiles necessary is sufficient. Or, of course, I could pay someone else to do it. Except I can't actually, since I don't usually have enough money sitting around to buy the latest FreeBSD CD, let alone pay for the OS on it. Perhaps you, OTOH, do have this as an option. Not to downplay the commonality of the third option -- "just wait until someone else does it". This'll happen, but it requires a little patience. > perl 4.036 is absolutely useless, so IMHO either ditch it and save people Not true. I use it. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk