Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 04:15:24 -0400 From: parv <parv@pair.com> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: portmgr@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: REINPLACE Message-ID: <20020617081524.GA3086@moo.holy.cow> In-Reply-To: <20020616234124.M2123-100000@blues.jpj.net> References: <3D0C2482.1D32A134@FreeBSD.org> <20020616234124.M2123-100000@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
in message <20020616234124.M2123-100000@blues.jpj.net>, wrote Trevor Johnson thusly... > ... > Having to install it to work with certain ports is IMO no great > tragedy, especially when it's under package management. ... > When batching, it brings in Perl as a build dependency for every > single port. For interactive builds, if Perl is needed and not > found, the build fails with an error message asking the user to > install it. installing perl just to edit some files in place is too much to ask for imo. the proposal certainly doesn't affect those, people like me, who actively use perl though. dare i say that same could be said for ruby especially considering the fact it's installed w/ portupgrade port (assuming ruby has regex & in place editing support like perl). sure perl is convenient, but there is really nothing wrong w/ sed, mv, cp, rm, & for/while loop where appropriate. all those going to be there more than ruby or perl. > This gives Perl-hating users a chance to fix the port > to use sed instead. so you prefer to transfer the onus on to anybody else besides ports@freebsd w/ multiple ways to do the same thing in various ports and won't cause so much discussion? - parv -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020617081524.GA3086>