On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 04:12:37AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Anton Berezin wrote:
> > The compatibility is a moot point either way, since there was no NO_PERL > > knob - it used to be called NOPERL. > > It's NOPERL in -stable, but it was NO_PERL in -current when I changed it > to NO_PERL_WRAPPER. My point was that it *was* NOPERL in -current before the removal of perl. But I see you handle this case in your patch to use.perl, so no argument here. > > That's fine, but I am still trying to understand why do we need a > > wrapper at all. As was indicated (on IRC, not sure it was mentioned in > > the mail threads), the ability to launch /usr/bin/perl with no perl in > > the system is different from the inability to launch anything at all. > Personally, I don't think we need a wrapper, as long as the use.perl > script knows how to DTRT. My point exactly. > However, given that currently we have a wrapper I thought fixing > use.perl to handle it was reasonable. The keyword here is `currently'. :-) Cheers, \Anton. -- | Anton Berezin | FreeBSD: The power to serve | | catpipe Systems ApS _ _ |_ | http://www.FreeBSD.org | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (_(_|| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | +45 7021 0050 | Private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
