* Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> [2007-05-03 10:30]: > > Alan Burlison and I would be happy to advise someone who wanted to > > move Perl to SFW from ON.Thanks! > > I want to help, but my plate full. I'm sure there is someone who can > take this on. (Actually the project should be more broadly scoped: > Remove non-essential packages from ON and move them to the appropriate > consolidations. > > I was asking to understand if there was a deliberate purpose to > keeping it in on. (Is it considered core?) > > I ask because if it is part of ON deliberately, I can make my packages > dependent on perl. If it simply done for convenience and belongs > elsewhere, I could not rely on it. (I made the decision already not to > rely on perl.) > > I will soon be working on vim integration in SVN. Which will hopefully > be replacing vi. Vi is, if I am not mistaken, part of ON. Where would > vim/vi end up? In ON or SFW or both?
Cross-consolidation package dependencies are the norm; the issue is whether the interfaces being consumed are public or not. So, it doesn't matter if Perl is in ON or SFW for a Vim integration into SFW or ON, only that it is present and the consumed interfaces are known to have some documented level of commitment (or have a contract to cover notification of coming changes). For two freeware components, this assessment is equivalent to knowing the compatibility by version. If it were my choice, I would integrate vim into SFW over ON. (I would leave vi entirely alone during a vim integration.) You don't have to tweak the component's build very much in SFW; generally, ON requires modifying the component build substantially. - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
