On Feb 3, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
[ ... ]
Ah, I see, the starting point was actually the reverse assumption
that all systems had /bin/env. Somebody mentioned /sbin/env on
Irix, but I don't know whether that was instead of /usr/bin/env or
in addition to it.
Of course I can alw
Charles Swiger:
> >Why should the authors of those scripts break them for systems which
> >have /bin/env?
>
> Name one such system. [1]
There was a discussion about this a few years ago on comp.unix.shell.
Let's see...
http://tinyurl.com/45zqx
Ah, I see, the starting point was actually the reve
On Feb 3, 2005, at 2:07 PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Well-behaved 3rd party scripts ought to start Perl via:
#! /usr/bin/env perl
Why should the authors of those scripts break them for systems which
have /bin/env?
Name one such system. [1]
Hint: the path to env isn't going to change on a standar
In the last episode (Feb 03), Christian Weisgerber said:
> Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well-behaved 3rd party scripts ought to start Perl via:
> > #! /usr/bin/env perl
>
> Why should the authors of those scripts break them for systems which
> have /bin/env?
Are there any system
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well-behaved 3rd party scripts ought to start Perl via:
> #! /usr/bin/env perl
Why should the authors of those scripts break them for systems which
have /bin/env?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wrote Jack L. Stone thusly...
>
> At 06:46 PM 1.30.2005 -0500, Parv wrote:
> >in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >wrote Anton Berezin thusly...
> >>
> >> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> >> plan to not create any perl symlinks in
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:50:31 -0600, Jack L. Stone
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this were a mere vote of the respondents, the NAYs have it by far.
I like change. Change is good and it keeps us on our toes. However,
some things should not be changed for the sake of change.
If /usr/bin/perl were
At 06:46 PM 1.30.2005 -0500, Parv wrote:
>in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>wrote Anton Berezin thusly...
>>
>> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
>> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
>> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and l
> From: Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:49:41 +0100
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CURRENT,
> > especially as most perl programmers assume /usr/bin/perl to be
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wrote Anton Berezin thusly...
>
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2).
> This will ONLY be true
On Jan 30, 2005, at 12:17, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:47:08PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In other words, it's an impossible dream to hope that all scripts
will
conform to this or any of the other possible choices (remember the
perl
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:47:08PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In other words, it's an impossible dream to hope that all scripts will
> > conform to this or any of the other possible choices (remember the
> > perl motto). Even making everything
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:24:25PM +0100, Anton Berezin said:
> In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
> order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
> #! /usr/local/bin/perl.
options under discussion:
1) break *millions* of pieces of Perl sof
Anton Berezin wrote:
In order to keep pkg-install simple, no old symlink chasing and removal
will be done, although the detailed instructions will be posted in
ports/UPDATING and in pkg-message for the ports.
How about leaving it up to the installer? Much like the minicom port
prompts the user if
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:44:38PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Hardcoded paths in scripts are a mess. What if I installed Perl into
> >> /opt/mumble on some other machine? /usr/freeware? /what/ever? Changed
> >> $PREFIX and/or $LOCALBASE?
> >
>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:49:41PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CURRENT,
> > especially as most perl programmers assume /usr/bin/perl to be the
> > correct path.
>
> POLA doesn't apply to
Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CURRENT,
> especially as most perl programmers assume /usr/bin/perl to be the
> correct path.
POLA doesn't apply to -CURRENT.
--
Matthias Andree
___
Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a) we had perl at /usr/bin/perl
>=> many scripts are using "#!/usr/bin/perl"
> b) we have a symlink now
>=> many new scripts are using "#!/usr/bin/perl"
> c) many ISPs have even more users who assume "#!/usr/bin/perl" works.
>=> removing a sym
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In other words, it's an impossible dream to hope that all scripts will
> conform to this or any of the other possible choices (remember the
> perl motto). Even making everything perl in the ports collection use
> a uniform style is probably an infeasibl
Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hardcoded paths in scripts are a mess. What if I installed Perl into
>> /opt/mumble on some other machine? /usr/freeware? /what/ever? Changed
>> $PREFIX and/or $LOCALBASE?
>
> Then you would have nobody but yourself to blame.
So ports not heeding PREFI
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Holger Kipp wrote:
> > > I'm fine with this plan for 6-CURRENT. For 5-STABLE, it's a major
> > > user-visible change, and that is something that we promised to avoid
> > > with stable bran
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Xander Damen wrote:
> Why would upgraded systems cause problems? I don't think the
> upgradesystem will delete any existing symlinks?
I don't know about other people, but I use incremental upgrades for only
minor releases on larger multi-user systems, generally. Because of
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
> - Don't change the behaviour on -STABLE (4.x, 5.x), but make an OPTION
> available, that would turn on the "new" behaviour.
>
> - For -CURRENT (6.x and beyond), if the change comes, make an OPTION
> available, to turn on the "old" behaviour.
Holger Kipp wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:21AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Sure, assuming there actually was a perl in /usr/bin. I would not choose
to hardcode the path to perl when env is available to properly locate the
interpreter for #!-based scripts via the $PATH.
a) we had perl at /u
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:21AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
I do want scripts to use a portable mechanism to invoke Perl regardless of
where the binary happens to be found, but if people are determined to do
otherwise, well, that's up to them. One solution for those people
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Holger Kipp wrote:
> > I'm fine with this plan for 6-CURRENT. For 5-STABLE, it's a major
> > user-visible change, and that is something that we promised to avoid
> > with stable branches.
>
> It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CURRENT,
> especially a
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:23:43PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> +-le 30/01/2005 12:19 +0100, Kirill Ponomarew ?crivait :
> | On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:08:34PM +1000, Mark Sergeant wrote:
> |> > If it's linux tradition to put perl in this path, perl programmers
> |> > should assume another path o
I think the color should be green.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:24:25 +0100, Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) an
+-le 30/01/2005 12:19 +0100, Kirill Ponomarew écrivait :
| On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:08:34PM +1000, Mark Sergeant wrote:
|> > If it's linux tradition to put perl in this path, perl programmers
|> > should assume another path on FreeBSD, so it isn't an argument for
|> > the proposed change.
|> >
|
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:11:34PM +1000, Mark Sergeant wrote:
> >find /some/directory -type f -print0 | \
> > xargs -0 perl -pi -e 's,^#! ?/usr(/local)?/bin/perl,#!/usr/bin/env
> >perl'
> >
>
> One problem I always had with "env" or equivalents... what happens if
> someone manages to polute
HANKS!
Don't despair, ironically Perl itself can solve this problem for you,
using
something like
find /some/directory -type f -print0 | \
xargs -0 perl -pi -e 's,^#! ?/usr(/local)?/bin/perl,#!/usr/bin/env
perl'
One problem I always had with "env" or equivalents... what happens if
someone man
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:21AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:51:36PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >>Andrew McNaughton wrote:
> >>#!/usr/bin/env PERL5OPT='-w' perl
> >
> >"#!/usr/bin/perl -w" sounds much easier.
>
> Sure, assuming there actual
On Sunday 30 January 2005 11:44, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> AB> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> AB> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> AB> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2).
>
> AB> In practical
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Holger Kipp wrote:
> > > I'm fine with this plan for 6-CURRENT. For 5-STABLE, it's a major
> > > user-visible change, and that is something that we promised to avoid
> > > with stable bran
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:31:21AM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> I do want scripts to use a portable mechanism to invoke Perl regardless of
> where the binary happens to be found, but if people are determined to do
> otherwise, well, that's up to them. One solution for those people might be
> t
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Holger Kipp wrote:
> > I'm fine with this plan for 6-CURRENT. For 5-STABLE, it's a major
> > user-visible change, and that is something that we promised to avoid
> > with stable branches.
>
> It violates POLA on 5-STABLE, and it will violate POLA on 6-CUR
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:51:37PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> Anton Berezin wrote:
>
> >Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> >plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> >upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2).
Hello Anton,
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 11:24:25 PM, you wrote:
AB> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
AB> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
AB> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2).
AB> In practi
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:51:36PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Andrew McNaughton wrote:
#!/usr/bin/env PERL5OPT='-w' perl
"#!/usr/bin/perl -w" sounds much easier.
Sure, assuming there actually was a perl in /usr/bin. I would not choose to
hardcode the path to perl when env i
Why would upgraded systems cause problems? I don't think the
upgradesystem will delete any existing symlinks?
Xander
Lupe Christoph wrote:
On Saturday, 2005-01-29 at 21:24:25 +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), ...
"don't do that"
On Saturday, 2005-01-29 at 21:24:25 +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), ...
"don't do that", ever.
Eben postponing this to the time 6.0 comes out does not change it. Any
upgraded system will fail in interesting and mysterious ways.
I s
Hello.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:24:25PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
> will ONLY
> While I agree that correct ports shouldn't be affected, I think that this
> will make a difference in how FreeBSD is looked at as a whole. I know that
> when I write stuff for other people in perl, it is presumed that perl is in
> /usr/bin, not /usr/local/bin because most of these people are
> > Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> > plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> > upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
> > will ONLY be true for FreeBSD 5.X and FreeBSD CURRENT; the existing
> >
Changing this so it affects 5-STABLE is suicide it will annoy a lot of
user's and draw people away from FreeBSD to other platforms, I dont
see any benefit from doing this the symlinks have caused me no ill
effect whatsoever
Chris
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:51:37 -0700, Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Anton Berezin wrote:
Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
will ONLY be true for FreeBSD 5.X and FreeBSD CURRENT; the existing
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:51:36PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Andrew McNaughton wrote:
> #!/usr/bin/env PERL5OPT='-w' perl
"#!/usr/bin/perl -w" sounds much easier.
Edwin
--
Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http:
Andrew McNaughton wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote:
[ ... ]
Well-behaved 3rd party scripts ought to start Perl via:
#! /usr/bin/env perl
...so long as /usr/local/bin is in the $PATH, they should still work
fine.
I commonly use this approach, but I run into some problems with flags.
P
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Anton Berezin wrote:
Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
will ONLY be true for FreeBSD 5.X and FreeBSD C
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Oliver Lehmann wrote:
Anton Berezin wrote:
In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
#! /usr/local/bin/perl.
Wouldn't that break most of the 3rd party scripts out
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Matthias Andree wrote:
Oliver Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anton Berezin wrote:
In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
#! /usr/local/bin/perl.
Wouldn't that break most of t
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 03:39:51AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Oliver Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anton Berezin wrote:
> >
> >> In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
> >> order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
> >> #! /u
Oliver Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anton Berezin wrote:
>
>> In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
>> order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
>> #! /usr/local/bin/perl.
>
> Wouldn't that break most of the 3rd party scripts out in
On Saturday 29 January 2005 21:24, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
Please, "don't do that"!
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#DEFINE-POLA
--
/"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\ /
Anton,
Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
will ONLY be true for FreeBSD 5.X and FreeBSD CURRENT; the existing
pollution of
On Sat, 2005-Jan-29 21:24:25 +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
>In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
>order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
>#! /usr/local/bin/perl.
I'd also like to object. The perl documentation has consistently
stated that
On Jan 29, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:24:25PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:17:47PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:09:05PM +0100, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> > Anton Berezin wrote:
> >
> > > In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
> > > order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin
Anton Berezin wrote:
Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
will ONLY be true for FreeBSD 5.X and FreeBSD CURRENT; the existing
On 2005-01-29 at 21:24:25 Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
> will ONLY be true for FreeBSD 5.X
Chuck Swiger wrote:
Well-behaved 3rd party scripts ought to start Perl via:
#! /usr/bin/env perl
...so long as /usr/local/bin is in the $PATH, they should still work fine.
It seems that this usage is not that common. On my 5.3R system the stats
are:
1101 scripts ending in .pl
490 of these have #
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> Anton Berezin wrote:
>
> > In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
> > order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
> > #! /usr/local/bin/perl.
>
> Wouldn't that break most of the 3rd party scripts o
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 04:19:21PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> >Anton Berezin wrote:
> >>In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
> >>order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
> >>#! /usr/local/bin/perl.
> >
> >Wouldn't
Oliver Lehmann wrote:
Anton Berezin wrote:
In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
#! /usr/local/bin/perl.
Wouldn't that break most of the 3rd party scripts out in the world?
Well-behaved 3rd party scri
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:09:05PM +0100, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> Anton Berezin wrote:
>
> > In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
> > order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
> > #! /usr/local/bin/perl.
>
> Wouldn't that break most of the
This has a huge external impact. Yes they are easily corrected but
unless there is a specific need to remove them my vote would be to
not put people though such a potentially painful change.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Anton Berezin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In practical terms this wi
Anton Berezin wrote:
> In practical terms this will mean a one-time sweep of your scripts in
> order to convert them, in a typical case, from #! /usr/bin/perl to
> #! /usr/local/bin/perl.
Wouldn't that break most of the 3rd party scripts out in the world?
--
Oliver Lehmann
http://www.pofo.de
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:24:25PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
> will ONLY be true
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:24:25PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
> plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
> upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
> will ONLY be true
Unless I hear too many cries "don't do that" (with justification), I
plan to not create any perl symlinks in /usr/bin in the forthcoming
upgrade of both lang/perl5.8 (to 5.8.6) and lang/perl5 (to 5.6.2). This
will ONLY be true for FreeBSD 5.X and FreeBSD CURRENT; the existing
pollution of /usr/bi
70 matches
Mail list logo
