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 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 systems that
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
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 reverse
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
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 lang/perl5 (to
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 no
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 /usr/bin in the
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
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 be
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 see
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,
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 is
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 practical
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). This
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-CURRENT,
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
to
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 branches.
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 terms this
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 actually was a perl in
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
+-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.
|
| As per
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) and
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 on
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 as most
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
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
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.
I think
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, 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 branches.
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 PREFIX or
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 infeasible
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 symlink to create
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
___
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?
Then you would
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
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
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 perl in
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
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 for
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 the
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/bin
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 for
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/
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 will
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 3rd
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
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 that break most
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 out in the
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 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 and
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 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/perl to
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 a
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 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]
\ / Max
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 the world?
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
#!
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
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 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
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.
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:
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
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]
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
66 matches
Mail list logo
