Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
Garance == Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Garance I agree. That's why a redirector makes more sense, because Garance the redirector can be part of the base-system, and the port Garance can be installed in /usr/local. There is one problem with the /usr/bin/perl redirector: it can cause autoconfiguration scripts to mistakenly think perl is installed on the system (they find the /usr/bin/perl wrapper) when it isn't (there is no perl-from-ports backing the redirector). --lyndon To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
On Mon May 13, 2002 at 02:02:28PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: There is one problem with the /usr/bin/perl redirector: it can cause autoconfiguration scripts to mistakenly think perl is installed on the system (they find the /usr/bin/perl wrapper) when it isn't (there is no perl-from-ports backing the redirector). An auto-configuration script which merely checks for the existance of a file rather than actually testing it's the file it needs is a bit silly and probably deserves the breakage. -- Jonathan Perkin - BBC Internet Services - http://support.bbc.co.uk/ Please check email headers for complete list of contact details To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
Jonathan == Jonathan Perkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jonathan An auto-configuration script which merely checks for the Jonathan existance of a file rather than actually testing it's the Jonathan file it needs is a bit silly and probably deserves the Jonathan breakage. And just what else besides Perl would you expect to find in /usr/bin/perl you silly pedant?!? ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 02:45:09PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: Jonathan == Jonathan Perkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jonathan An auto-configuration script which merely checks for the Jonathan existance of a file rather than actually testing it's the Jonathan file it needs is a bit silly and probably deserves the Jonathan breakage. And just what else besides Perl would you expect to find in /usr/bin/perl you silly pedant?!? ;-) A broken symlink? Perl 4? Perl 6? A perfectly reasionable wrapper script? If these programs detect perl and don't work because the wrapper is there, then a) they are broken and b) it will only take a couple minutes to fix by adding a perl package so why worry. /usr/bin/perl should work if perl is installed to avoid a massive POLA violation. Since ports must not touch /usr/bin and we must not assume that PREFIX=/usr/local, a symlink is out of the question. A wrapper isn't really going to cost us anything performance wise and allows the possability of providing something more useful then File not found as an error message. As such, it's a very good solution. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form X is the one, true Y is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 msg38295/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 02:45:09PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: Jonathan == Jonathan Perkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jonathan An auto-configuration script which merely checks for the Jonathan existance of a file rather than actually testing it's the Jonathan file it needs is a bit silly and probably deserves the Jonathan breakage. And just what else besides Perl would you expect to find in /usr/bin/perl you silly pedant?!? ;-) A perl wrapper? -- David W. Chapman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. www.inethouston.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
Jonathan Perkin wrote: On Mon May 13, 2002 at 02:02:28PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: There is one problem with the /usr/bin/perl redirector: it can cause autoconfiguration scripts to mistakenly think perl is installed on the system (they find the /usr/bin/perl wrapper) when it isn't (there is no perl-from-ports backing the redirector). An auto-configuration script which merely checks for the existance of a file rather than actually testing it's the file it needs is a bit silly and probably deserves the breakage. FWIW: All the ones I have lying around that care about perl try to get the version by running it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Jonathan Perkin wrote: On Mon May 13, 2002 at 02:02:28PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: There is one problem with the /usr/bin/perl redirector: it can cause autoconfiguration scripts to mistakenly think perl is installed on the system (they find the /usr/bin/perl wrapper) when it isn't (there is no perl-from-ports backing the redirector). An auto-configuration script which merely checks for the existance of a file rather than actually testing it's the file it needs is a bit silly and probably deserves the breakage. There's two sides to this. One side is that you should always adhere to the FreeBSD filesystem standard. The other side is that if /usr/bin/perl exists it should always be a working perl program. I'd like to throw out a mention that I think that all filesystem standards imposed by the people writing the OS or the software packages and not imposed by the system administrators is the wrong way to go. A somewhat rambling stream-of-consciousness argument that I wrote about this is here: http://www.scriptkiddie.org/rants/registry.html I've been thinking that an interesting project would be to implement the simple part of this with the hooks into autoconf and /usr/bin/install and convert the FreeBSD base OS to use it. I'll be doing that after someone can roll the clock back to 1999 and have my stock options hit 200 though... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Resolution (Was: Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD)
On Thu, 09 May 2002 10:13:04 MST, Terry Lambert wrote: Uh, csh. Preferrably with tcsh extensions, so it won't run anywhere else. In a pinch, I guess you could use bash. cackles maniacally, and ducks Poul-Henning was too kind. You shouldn't be banned from the lists, you should be taken out back and shot until dead. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Resolution (Was: Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD)
Richard Arends wrote: On Thu, 9 May 2002, Mark Murray wrote: Can somebody, or maybe you, make a list off the perl script in the base OS, that need to be rewritten?? Of course! :). Done, sent to current@ Perfect... What is preffered: C, Shell ??? Uh, csh. Preferrably with tcsh extensions, so it won't run anywhere else. In a pinch, I guess you could use bash. cackles maniacally, and ducks -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Resolution (Was: Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD)
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: Uh, csh. Preferrably with tcsh extensions, so it won't run anywhere else. In a pinch, I guess you could use bash. As far i can see, (almost?) everything is already moved from perl to something else. Asked it, went away for a few hours and all the work is done :-) Greetings, Richard. An OS is like swiss cheese, the bigger it is, the more holes you get! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 07:16:31PM +0200, Miguel Mendez wrote:
Ports should avoid messing with stuff outside of ${PREFIX} if they can
help it. Existing systems will already have a /usr/bin/perl on them
unless the user goes and removes it. People writing or executing scripts for
new systems can easily figure out something is wrong when they get:
Now that I think of it, you are absolutely right, John. Just let's make
a big big banner saying Perl is no longer in base so everybody notices
Ok, then. What is so wrong with /usr/bin/perl being /usr/bin/env perl,
or DES's wrapper?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Resolution (Was: Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD)
[bogus From: address, because people cannot be bothered to respect Reply-To:] On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 09:32:10AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote: Why?? If someone wants to use perl in building a port, let them. Add a BUILD_DEPENDS. Seems like an awful amount of installation if all you are going to be doing with it is something that can be easily acheived by sed (which is probably the biggest case). Please don't be telling a maintainer how to do his job. If you want to push a direction of a port, become its maintainer. (I dare say even 90% of Perl haters will have it installed anyway, so using is not such a big deal) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 12:55:42PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
Hi,
Ports should avoid messing with stuff outside of ${PREFIX} if they can
help it. Existing systems will already have a /usr/bin/perl on them
unless the user goes and removes it. People writing or executing scripts for
new systems can easily figure out something is wrong when they get:
Now that I think of it, you are absolutely right, John. Just let's make
a big big banner saying Perl is no longer in base so everybody notices
:)
Cheers,
--
Miguel Mendez - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG Public Key :: http://energyhq.homeip.net/files/pubkey.txt
EnergyHQ :: http://www.energyhq.tk
FreeBSD - The power to serve!
msg38107/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, then. What is so wrong with /usr/bin/perl being /usr/bin/env perl, or DES's wrapper? People just need something to be righteously wroth about. Moving perl out of the base is no longer open to debate, so they've found another bikeshed to argue about. Please stop this thread. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 05:31:49PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2002 08:24:57 MST, Joseph Scott wrote:
This may sound like an extremely silly little idea, but is there
any reason why we can't just replace /usr/bin/perl with a shell script
that prints out something like :
Perl is no longer comes with the base install of FreeBSD, please install
it from your ports collection, in /usr/ports/lang/perl5.
We don't want the port to overwrite a script that exists in userland,
and we don't want installworld blowing away (or, even worse, following)
the port's symlink.
Symlink or redirector, but please not this. :-)
Shouldn't ports *not* touch anything outside of ${PREFIX}? I, for
one, can't stand when ports do that (except /etc/shells -- that's
different).
Seems that neither symlink nor redirector is neccesary; portable
perl shebangs use #!/usr/bin/env perl to search $PATH for it, and
if the local sysadmin wants they can make a symlink.
--
Jordan DeLong
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
msg38119/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
Jordan DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems that neither symlink nor redirector is neccesary; portable perl shebangs use #!/usr/bin/env perl to search $PATH for it, and if the local sysadmin wants they can make a symlink. Most Perl scripts use '#!/usr/bin/perl'; also, using a redirector has the very nice side effect of clobbering the old Perl binary. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: The future of perl on FreeBSD
At 6:29 PM -0500 5/9/02, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Symlink or redirector, but please not this. :-)
Shouldn't ports *not* touch anything outside of ${PREFIX}?
I, for one, can't stand when ports do that
(except /etc/shells -- that's different).
I agree. That's why a redirector makes more sense, because
the redirector can be part of the base-system, and the port
can be installed in /usr/local.
Seems that neither symlink nor redirector is neccesary;
portable perl shebangs use #!/usr/bin/env perl to search
$PATH for it, and if the local sysadmin wants they can
make a symlink.
Many many perl scripts already exist which do not do this.
Yes, we now know that it would be more portable to write
a script that way, but that doesn't magically change all
the scripts which are already written and which are very
used to assuming that perl is at /usr/bin/perl.
Also, the /usr/bin/env approach means that scripts are
now subject to the setting of $PATH, and that is not
necessarily a good thing. Remember that the person
running the script is not necessarily the person who
wrote it, and is not necessarily aware that it even
is a perl script, or that PATH is important when
running that script. (PATH would not be important
for a script which is using /usr/bin/perl)
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
