From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 12 15:29:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA26242 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cdsnet.net (mail.cdsnet.net [204.118.244.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA26234 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cdsnet.net (mail.cdsnet.net [204.118.244.5]) by mail.cdsnet.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA12572 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Jaye Mathisen To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: What's the interest in standard tools rewritten in perl? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I was in the process of adding some flexibility to newsyslog, and decided to just rewrite the darn thing in perl5. Essentially I added the ability to datestamp the logfiles, and a couple of other things. I can always call it something else (newnewsyslog?), but I was wondering if FreeBSD Inc would consider utilities that were not written in C? Seems like there was some discussion about lack of tools in TCL and Perl, but I'm not sure about the politics of tool replacement, as opposed to tool addition. Anyway, just curious.