Re: Head's up: NO_PERL -> NO_PERL_WRAPPER
Terry Lambert wrote: > If we are expressing preferences, I prefer that it be called: > > NO_WE_CHANGE_THE_NAME_SO_YOU_GET_PERL_ANYWAY_`date "+%Y%m%d%H%M%S"` If we're expressing preferences, I think we should eliminate the wrapper altogether. > Just so that the name matches it's *real* function, which is apparently > to make sure that whatever variable you set to avoid getting perl last > time is totally ineffective in preventing you getting perl this time. But you're not getting perl, you're just getting the basically harmless wrapper. I had two choices with this change, I could either change the variable back to NOPERL which both A) Doesn't match the current pseudo-standard, and B) doesn't describe what it's actually doing. > I personally just consider it an unsubtle means of perl advocacy... I tend to agree with this. -- "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, ... we will see freedom's victory." - George W. Bush, President of the United States State of the Union, January 28, 2002 Do YOU Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Head's up: NO_PERL -> NO_PERL_WRAPPER
Doug Barton wrote: > Anton Berezin wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 02:39:45AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > > Per discussion with various folks, including Mark, I've moved the > > > NO_PERL knob over to NO_PERL_WRAPPER, and documented same. Given that > > > this is a fundamentally different thing than the old perl knobs, my > > > opinion is that we don't need to provide compatibility, but I won't > > > argue that point too strongly. > > > > The compatibility is a moot point either way, since there was no NO_PERL > > knob - it used to be called NOPERL. > > It's NOPERL in -stable, but it was NO_PERL in -current when I changed it > to NO_PERL_WRAPPER. If we are expressing preferences, I prefer that it be called: NO_WE_CHANGE_THE_NAME_SO_YOU_GET_PERL_ANYWAY_`date "+%Y%m%d%H%M%S"` Just so that the name matches it's *real* function, which is apparently to make sure that whatever variable you set to avoid getting perl last time is totally ineffective in preventing you getting perl this time. I personally just consider it an unsubtle means of perl advocacy... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Head's up: NO_PERL -> NO_PERL_WRAPPER
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 04:12:37AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Anton Berezin wrote: > > The compatibility is a moot point either way, since there was no NO_PERL > > knob - it used to be called NOPERL. > > It's NOPERL in -stable, but it was NO_PERL in -current when I changed it > to NO_PERL_WRAPPER. My point was that it *was* NOPERL in -current before the removal of perl. But I see you handle this case in your patch to use.perl, so no argument here. > > That's fine, but I am still trying to understand why do we need a > > wrapper at all. As was indicated (on IRC, not sure it was mentioned in > > the mail threads), the ability to launch /usr/bin/perl with no perl in > > the system is different from the inability to launch anything at all. > Personally, I don't think we need a wrapper, as long as the use.perl > script knows how to DTRT. My point exactly. > However, given that currently we have a wrapper I thought fixing > use.perl to handle it was reasonable. The keyword here is `currently'. :-) Cheers, \Anton. -- | Anton Berezin| FreeBSD: The power to serve | | catpipe Systems ApS _ _ |_ | http://www.FreeBSD.org | | [EMAIL PROTECTED](_(_|| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | +45 7021 0050| Private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Head's up: NO_PERL -> NO_PERL_WRAPPER
Anton Berezin wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 02:39:45AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > Per discussion with various folks, including Mark, I've moved the > > NO_PERL knob over to NO_PERL_WRAPPER, and documented same. Given that > > this is a fundamentally different thing than the old perl knobs, my > > opinion is that we don't need to provide compatibility, but I won't > > argue that point too strongly. > > The compatibility is a moot point either way, since there was no NO_PERL > knob - it used to be called NOPERL. It's NOPERL in -stable, but it was NO_PERL in -current when I changed it to NO_PERL_WRAPPER. > > I'm currently working on a patch to ports/lang/perl5/files/use.perl to > > deal with this, and a few of the other outstanding issues. > > That's fine, but I am still trying to understand why do we need a > wrapper at all. As was indicated (on IRC, not sure it was mentioned in > the mail threads), the ability to launch /usr/bin/perl with no perl in > the system is different from the inability to launch anything at all. Personally, I don't think we need a wrapper, as long as the use.perl script knows how to DTRT. However, given that currently we have a wrapper I thought fixing use.perl to handle it was reasonable. -- "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, ... we will see freedom's victory." - George W. Bush, President of the United States State of the Union, January 28, 2002 Do YOU Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Head's up: NO_PERL -> NO_PERL_WRAPPER
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 02:39:45AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Per discussion with various folks, including Mark, I've moved the > NO_PERL knob over to NO_PERL_WRAPPER, and documented same. Given that > this is a fundamentally different thing than the old perl knobs, my > opinion is that we don't need to provide compatibility, but I won't > argue that point too strongly. The compatibility is a moot point either way, since there was no NO_PERL knob - it used to be called NOPERL. > I'm currently working on a patch to ports/lang/perl5/files/use.perl to > deal with this, and a few of the other outstanding issues. That's fine, but I am still trying to understand why do we need a wrapper at all. As was indicated (on IRC, not sure it was mentioned in the mail threads), the ability to launch /usr/bin/perl with no perl in the system is different from the inability to launch anything at all. =Anton. -- | Anton Berezin| FreeBSD: The power to serve | | catpipe Systems ApS _ _ |_ | http://www.FreeBSD.org | | [EMAIL PROTECTED](_(_|| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | +45 7021 0050| Private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
