From the keyboard of M. Warner Losh:
My take on this. We should remove perl from the base, and
automatically install the port for most users in sysinstall, just like
we do with XFree86.
OK, fine and if then an option FETCH_MAKE_AND_INSTALL_PERL_FROM_PORTS
is added to make.conf and made
From the keyboard of M. Warner Losh:
My take on this. We should remove perl from the base, and
automatically install the port for most users in sysinstall, just like
we do with XFree86.
OK, fine and if then an option FETCH_MAKE_AND_INSTALL_PERL_FROM_PORTS
is added to make.conf and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Thu 2 May, 2002
Subject: Re: Save a few hunderd kilobytes or a few hundred perl users?
My take on this. We should remove perl from the base, and
automatically install the port for most users in sysinstall, just like
we do with XFree86
The base will no longer depend on it before too much longer. The vnode
and kobj dependencies are already gone in current.
Ahh, ok, if that's the case, then I agree with your original statement;
not that it matters much :-)
Ken
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
NetBSD (-current, at least) does not have perl in the base. OpenBSD
has 5.6.something.
*NOD*
Perhaps FreeBSD could benefit from following NetBSD, and use awk or
whatever to replace the perl stuff for kernel build and wherever else.
We've already sorted that out for the kernel build. I'm
I'm not sure that is acceptable. I believe that perl 5.8.0 will be
+- 45 MB. I cannot afford to import all of that - I'd get lynched.
that is price, for example, for Unicode.
Okay, when many platforms will be doing stripping their tools, everyone
should remember where his perl programs are
Johnny Lam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
perl-5.10.0
perl-library-standard-1.0
perl-library-ISP-1.0
...
Whatever approach we take, two major problems must be solved to
accomplish this:
1: A perl distribution must be able to be (re)located anywhere and
use itself as
Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:Johnny Lam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: perl-5.10.0
: perl-library-standard-1.0
: perl-library-ISP-1.0
: ...
:
:Whatever approach we take, two major problems must be solved to
:accomplish this:
: 1: A perl distribution must be able to
[Quoting Hugo van der Sanden, on May 1 2002, 15:06, in Re: Save a few hunde]
Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:Whatever approach we take, two major problems must be solved to
:accomplish this:
: 1: A perl distribution must be able to be (re)located anywhere and
:use itself as a
I'm not sure that is acceptable. I believe that perl 5.8.0 will be
+- 45 MB. I cannot afford to import all of that - I'd get lynched.
that is price, for example, for Unicode.
Okay, when many platforms will be doing stripping their tools, everyone
should remember where his perl programs
Debian's perl-base is a little bit more than miniperl but it still is
only 1.2MB (ix86).
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 12:56 , Mark Murray wrote:
For me, nowadays 45MB is nothing compared to medium HDD capacity, and
even
my POCKET PC will easily accomodate it...
45 MB is fine as a port - we have ports that are way bigger than that.
And we even have bigger ports that does take
But to sensibly strip down the distribution to just as much as needed
does take a lot of something the most precious -- intellectual power.
That I consider a waste. I don't think anyone objects that there are
several hundred, or even thousand, files under /usr/src so long as it
builds
On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 12:56 , Mark Murray wrote:
For me, nowadays 45MB is nothing compared to medium HDD capacity, and
even
my POCKET PC will easily accomodate it...
45 MB is fine as a port - we have ports that are way bigger than that.
And we even have bigger ports that
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Well, my understanding is that this is exactly what Mark is talking
about-- for the needs of the FreeBSD itself (build, pksrc?) they don't
need all of Perl. For that miniperl or something like Debian's
perl-base where you don't start by leaving
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:17:40AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
Speaking of which, the whole build process does not use objective-C
(correct me if I am wrong).
The cost of Objective-C, given we have to have C, is 1 minute in build
time, and 390K of diskspace (installed). This is several orders
Title: RE: Save a few hunderd kilobytes or a few hundred perl users?
One possible solution might be as follow;
rename /usr/src/contrib/perl5 to /usr/src/contrib/miniperl5
and just add enough file to build miniperl.
I've read all the messages in this thread, but I'm still unclear
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 03:00:45PM -0500, Fisher Mark wrote:
One possible solution might be as follow;
rename /usr/src/contrib/perl5 to /usr/src/contrib/miniperl5
and just add enough file to build miniperl.
I've read all the messages in this thread, but I'm still unclear -- are we
My take on this. We should remove perl from the base, and
automatically install the port for most users in sysinstall, just like
we do with XFree86.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
But doesn't the kernel rely on perl for building?
perl5 ../../kern/vnode_if.pl -h ../../kern/vnode_if.src
does it make sense to remove it from the base when the base depends on it?
Ken
On Wed, 1 May 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
My take on this. We should remove perl from the base, and
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kenneth Culver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: But doesn't the kernel rely on perl for building?
:
:
: perl5 ../../kern/vnode_if.pl -h ../../kern/vnode_if.src
:
: does it make sense to remove it from the base when the base depends on it?
The base will no
and just add enough file to build miniperl.
I've read all the messages in this thread, but I'm still unclear -- are we
talking about building the miniperl that Perl already creates during the
build process? If not, the minimal perl for building the FreeBSD kernel
should have a different
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:37:10PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
I STRONGLY suggest that this discussion should get it's own mailing list,
though, this is off topic for both perl5-porters and freebsd-current.
I'm certain both those lists are
Fisher Mark wrote:
Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
[ ... de-MIME-ed dso that it's distinguishable from an email virus ... ]
] I've read all the messages in this thread, but I'm still unclear -- are we
] talking about building the miniperl that Perl already creates during the
] build
Mark, and FreeBSD committers,
I am deeply disappointed by the recent move to drop some of the files
(CGI.pm, et al.) in perl distribution /usr/src/contrib/perl5. By saving
a few hundred kilobytes, you are risking losing a few hundred perl
hackers that run FreeBSD thereon.
On Tuesday,
(I promise that this is my last message about this matter to this large a
recipient list. Who is the maintainer of the Perl package in FreeBSD?
Anton Berezin, I think? [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCed.)
Though I disagree with the tone of Dan Kogai, I must agree on the
technical grounds that leaving away
*Sigh*
Dan, I'm not entirely happy that you chose to take this discussion so
public, with such a wide CC list. My experience is that these matters
are much better solved in smaller groups, where the signal/noise ratio
doesn't go straight to /dev/null.
[FWIW, I'm the release manager of the Perl
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
(I promise that this is my last message about this matter to this large a
recipient list. Who is the maintainer of the Perl package in FreeBSD?
Anton Berezin, I think? [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCed.)
Though I disagree with the tone of Dan Kogai, I must agree on the
Mark, and FreeBSD committers,
I am deeply disappointed by the recent move to drop some of the files
(CGI.pm, et al.) in perl distribution /usr/src/contrib/perl5. By saving
a few hundred kilobytes, you are risking losing a few hundred perl
hackers that run FreeBSD thereon.
OK...
I
(I promise that this is my last message about this matter to this large a
recipient list. Who is the maintainer of the Perl package in FreeBSD?
Anton Berezin, I think? [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCed.)
Me - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though I disagree with the tone of Dan Kogai, I must agree on the
Me - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks.
Firstly, both the outputs of perl -v and perl -V should be amended.
For example:
$ perl -v
This is perl, v5.6.1 built for i686-freebsd
... etc. I could do this.
Sounds okay.
Secondly, as the above message indicates, there should be a full
First my apology for choices of stronger words than they have to.
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 03:03 , Mark Murray wrote:
Well, look at it this way. Perl is very hard to build already, and it
is very big, and you say it is getting bigger. All base freebsd needs
is the core language. The rest
Can we not come to a compromise here?
One possible solution might be as follow;
rename /usr/src/contrib/perl5 to /usr/src/contrib/miniperl5
Yes - in discussion the idea has already been brought up that all we
need of perl is miniperl. I'm going to experiment with world builds
that do
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:55:25AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
Maybe python and ruby should go for that approach as well and I see
that's the way to go -- for ports. We still need perl to build FreeBSD
and we got to come up with a correct soultion -- not only politically
but also
I think Perl should be broken into two pieces: a miniperl distribution
that is called Perl and a separate Standard Perl Module Library
distribution. They would be versioned separately so what's considered part
of the core Perl language isn't confused with what version of CGI.pm or
other
Perl stuff like perldoc, pod2man we would like to be able to build
with sed/awk scripts if necessary.
All the perl developers that I know like writing perl.
I wonder why that is? ;-)
Given the choice of writing something in sed sed/awk versus writing something
in perl, which do you
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:29:00PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
: NetBSD (I) used to separate out Perl into a separate miniperl package +
: extensions, but I gave up on doing this because it was just getting to be
: a maintainence headache -- with every Perl release, I had to wade through
: a
Mark Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I think Perl should be broken into two pieces: a miniperl distribution
: that is called Perl and a separate Standard Perl Module Library
: distribution. They would be versioned separately so what's considered part
: of the core Perl language isn't confused
38 matches
Mail list logo
