Date: 22 Feb 1997 02:52:14 +0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@demon.co.uk> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Perl5 modules Message-ID: <87914htuw1.fsf@originat.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Can we *PLEASE* rethink how this is done in ports. A lot of Perl programmers complained at the time this was wrong and I'm complaining again. The only argument I heard in favour of the current scheme was that if some hacker was looking for a package to do something, say web related, then they'd probably go and look in www. This is so totally braindead words fail me. If you program in Perl a you *KNOW* what package you want. I just grabbed a program from work, realised I didn't have a common package installed at home and thought Ok, get it from ports but I'm buggered if I know of a way of finding it in ports other than looking in each bloody directory! It would be so much easier if "real" perl programmers could go to /usr/ports/lang/perl_cpan/ and see immediately if the package they want is part of the ports collection or not. The current scheme just isn't right and any "real" perl programmer would agree (I think :-) How exactly are we going to classify perl packages that don't fit into our current categories anyway? The package I wanted turned out to not be in ports (I did end up searching every directory!). If I want to add it (Date::Parse) where do I put it? Footnote: A "real" perl programmer is someone who writes perl5 and treats it as a "true" programming language rather than a scripting language. Perl5 is *NOT* perl4 with bug fixes and enhancements, it's a totally different beast altogether. This is of course my totally subjective personal opinion :-) -- Dr Paul Richards, Originative Solutions Ltd. Internet: paul@originat.demon.co.uk Phone: 0370 462071 (UK Mobile)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87914htuw1.fsf>