Said Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > /usr/sbin/perl is acceptable, too.
> >
> > .... but not /usr/bin/perl ?
>
> Right. See my earlier message about /usr/bin/perl being for *Perl*
> users a contract. It not being a "full" Perl is like removing half
> of the headers of gcc since they are not absolutely needed for
> compiling hello.c.
What I am trying to separate out is the core language and an
exponentially growing set of libraries. (I believe that perl 5.8.0
is going to be 45MB - that is WAAAAAAY too big for us to swallow)
A C compiler does not need the headers for pretty raw code, and it
should use the system's headers for the system's libraries (FreeBSD
does not use GNU's glibc, and nor does it use the vast majority of
GCC's headers (except for building GCC)).
Note also that FreeBSD's port system will not install a full perl into
/usr/bin/perl. The ports system installs into ${PREFIX} (default
/usr/local on FreeBSD and /usr/pkg on NetBSD). If "base-perl" was
in the OS by default, and "usual perl libraries" were an option
for perl hackers, I suspect everyone would be happy.
> How's this?
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 jhi users 920824 touko� 6 16:37 microperl
>
> That's a stripped "microperl" (on Linux, but at least I got the
> processor right.) It contains absolutely no fluff, requires no
> Configure to run (all it requires is that uconfig.sh contains somewhat
> reasonable guesses, plus make and sh). It even cannot load dynamic
> stuff, so it can't eat more of precious virtual memory... :-)
So its basically miniperl. I've been building miniperl in a similar
way for a while, as part of the process of bootstrapping perl for
the FreeBSD "make world" build.
M
--
o Mark Murray
\_
O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn
