From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 20 21:24:10 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA06091 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:24:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA06075 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:24:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.3/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id FAA18394; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:22:27 GMT Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:22:27 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Michael Smith cc: David Nugent , terry@lambert.org, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! In-Reply-To: <199611210427.OAA11100@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Michael Smith wrote: > It's not a question of whether _everyone_ needs it, but whether a > sufficient number of people need it. I think that so far the evidence > indicates that this is the case. > I prefer having it in ports or a different distribution so that it can be excluded easier. The people who want it excluded include those who don't care about having perl 5.0 and those who would rather track it and configure it themselves. If it must be put in the base then can we replace perl 4.0 without causing an uproar? Also, can we agree on the options included? I really don't want to see 2 different releases of perl in the base distribution. Perl's size is significant, especially when you consider that it will be in the cvs tree, the installation, and the checked out sources. Double it if you have both 4.x and 5.x. Regards, Mike Hancock