On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, David O'Brien wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 05:07:39PM +0200, Anton Berezin wrote:
> > It sounds reasonable, but what's the point of having a wrapper at all
> > then?
> One way or the other we need to have /usr/bin/perl exist and be usable.
> Many have perl scripts in ~/bin that they expect to run on all modern
> OS's -- which means they have /usr/bin/perl.

Exactly, the reason for the "wrapper" even if its not a wrapper, but a
placeholder, is to notify people that there has been a change, and you now
need to install the perl port for perl.

The optimum behaviour would be to "use.perl port" when its installed, and
if the port is removed, have the placeholder still in place. (a -current
version of use.perl system)

> > I am of the opinion that we don't need the wrapper and that use.perl can
> > easily do some symlink magic to solve all outstanding issues with perl
> > in -current.
> With the limitations in the exiting wrapper, either use.perl or using
> mailwrapper is probably what we should do.


Anton, if you don;t get around to it this weekend, mind if I take a stab
at it?


Trish Lynch                                     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD                                         The Power to Serve
Ecartis Core Team                               [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to