Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:22:27 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: David Nugent <davidn@sdev.usn.blaze.net.au>, terry@lambert.org, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961121140354.18153A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199611210427.OAA11100@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.961121140354.18153A-100000>