Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:14:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Trish Lynch <trish@bsdunix.net> To: <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Anton Berezin <tobez@FreeBSD.ORG>, Trish Lynch <trish@bsdunix.net>, John Hay <jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za>, Szilveszter Adam <sziszi@bsd.hu> Subject: Re: perl wrapper and PATH Message-ID: <20020608141128.D403-100000@femme.listmistress.org> In-Reply-To: <20020608110834.A25686@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 05:07:39PM +0200, Anton Berezin wrote:
> > It sounds reasonable, but what's the point of having a wrapper at all
> > then?
>
> One way or the other we need to have /usr/bin/perl exist and be usable.
> Many have perl scripts in ~/bin that they expect to run on all modern
> OS's -- which means they have /usr/bin/perl.
>
Exactly, the reason for the "wrapper" even if its not a wrapper, but a
placeholder, is to notify people that there has been a change, and you now
need to install the perl port for perl.
The optimum behaviour would be to "use.perl port" when its installed, and
if the port is removed, have the placeholder still in place. (a -current
version of use.perl system)
> > I am of the opinion that we don't need the wrapper and that use.perl can
> > easily do some symlink magic to solve all outstanding issues with perl
> > in -current.
>
> With the limitations in the exiting wrapper, either use.perl or using
> mailwrapper is probably what we should do.
>
*nod*
Anton, if you don;t get around to it this weekend, mind if I take a stab
at it?
-Trish
--
Trish Lynch trish@bsdunix.net
FreeBSD The Power to Serve
Ecartis Core Team trish@listmistress.org
http://www.freebsd.org
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?20020608141128.D403-100000>