__FreeBSD_version bump for loss of perl
Could we have a __FreeBSD_version bump for the diking out of perl from the base system please? A chunk of ports work needs to be done to conditionally use perl vs sed for in-line replacements on lots of Makefiles. Thanks, -aDe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: __FreeBSD_version bump for loss of perl
Ade Lovett wrote: Could we have a __FreeBSD_version bump for the diking out of perl from the base system please? A chunk of ports work needs to be done to conditionally use perl vs sed for in-line replacements on lots of Makefiles. I agree that a __FreeBSD_version bump is appropriate, but why not always simply use sed for this ? Maxime To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: __FreeBSD_version bump for loss of perl
On 05/16/02 17:46, Maxime Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that a __FreeBSD_version bump is appropriate, but why not always
simply use sed for this ?
Because not everyone using the ports system has the in-place editing feature
of sed that was recently added, and thus it needs to be conditional on
${OSVERSION}.
-aDe
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: __FreeBSD_version bump for loss of perl
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:52:45PM -0500, Ade Lovett wrote:
On 05/16/02 17:46, Maxime Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that a __FreeBSD_version bump is appropriate, but why not always
simply use sed for this ?
Because not everyone using the ports system has the in-place editing feature
of sed that was recently added, and thus it needs to be conditional on
${OSVERSION}.
Nor maybe do we want to use them. If I want to add Perl as a build
depends, that is my perorative as a maintainer.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: __FreeBSD_version bump for loss of perl
Ade == Ade Lovett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ade Because not everyone using the ports system has the in-place
Ade editing feature of sed that was recently added, and thus it
Ade needs to be conditional on ${OSVERSION}.
Why can't we use ed for in-place edits?
--lyndon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: __FreeBSD_version bump for loss of perl
[bogus From: address, because people cannot be bothered to respect Reply-To:]
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 06:17:44PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Why can't we use ed for in-place edits?
perl -pi.hold -e 's/FOO/BAR/g' ${WRKSRC}/a/b/{X,Y}
is not as easy to do with `ed'.
People should find something else to worry about.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: __FreeBSD_version bump for loss of perl
perl -pi.hold -e 's/FOO/BAR/g' ${WRKSRC}/a/b/{X,Y}
is not as easy to do with `ed'.
It's not *that* hard. 10 lines of shell script is preferable to
XX MB of perl bloat. Especially for this sort of problem.
--lyndon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: __FreeBSD_version bump for loss of perl
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 06:17:44PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Ade == Ade Lovett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ade Because not everyone using the ports system has the in-place
Ade editing feature of sed that was recently added, and thus it
Ade needs to be conditional on ${OSVERSION}.
Why can't we use ed for in-place edits?
Someone just bump the __FreeBSD_version, please. It costs nothing,
and it's a landmark event by any definition.
Kris
msg38450/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
