Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 23:08:44 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Fisher Mark <fisherm@tce.com> Cc: 'Dan Kogai' <dankogai@dan.co.jp>, Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, perl5-porters@perl.org Subject: Re: Save a few hunderd kilobytes or a few hundred perl users? Message-ID: <3CD0D7EC.4BEEC76D@mindspring.com> References: <A5E22933E3D5D4118FFE00508BF373C7E41169@indyexch28.indy.tce.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Fisher Mark wrote: > > Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain) [ ... de-MIME-ed dso that it's distinguishable from an email virus ... ] ] I've read all the messages in this thread, but I'm still unclear -- are we ] talking about building the "miniperl" that Perl already creates during the ] build process? If not, the minimal perl for building the FreeBSD kernel ] should have a different name, like: ] smallperl ] modestperl ] tightperl ] midgetperl ] petiteperl ] or something similar. I see much potential for confusion if "miniperl" ] means different Perl builds in different contexts. It's really assinine (IMO) to have a non-standard third party application. Either it's "perl" or it's "not perl". The big argument here appears to be that there are a number of CPAN modules used for writing CGIs that FreeBSD doesn't include by default, while the perl community itself seems intent on bloating the base perl distribution with these things... and most everyone else considers them security risks or bloat or whatever. Frankly, I think if anyone were honestly concerned about bloat, we wouldn't have perl in the base system in the first place. So let's just take the "anti-bloat" argument off the table. That should clear the picture up considerably. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CD0D7EC.4BEEC76D>