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
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
[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
> "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
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
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
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
__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
