Re: /bin/perl
On Sun, 3 Mar 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chris Fearnley writes ("Re: /bin/perl"):
> ...
> > I disagree. I mean some like awk, others python. So where would the
> > bloat in /bin end if everyone got to have their favorite tools in
> > /bin? I think FSSTND says only /required/ tools belong in /bin.
> > Moreover, we already have a general purpose scripting tool available,
> > /bin/bash.
>
> I think that Perl is a special case because we have made it required
> for Debian.
>
> run-parts, which is in /bin, is a Perl script. Either that has to be
> changed, or Perl needs to be in /bin too.
Jeff Noxon, the previous maintainer of miscutils, rewrote run-parts in
C. That would be miscutils 1.37. I'm the current maintainer and
really don't care whether it continues in C or goes back to perl.
But run-parts is not the issue here. The issue is whether a better
scripting language should be on the debian base set, installed in
/bin. I think everyone will agree that bash can sometimes be a pain to
write scripts in.
Chris argues that if we include perl, we'll have to include everybody's
favorite language. While perl may or may not be the best scripting
language, it is without question the most popular. The perl binary is
0.5 megs; we can prohibit base scripts from 'use'ing anything so we
won't require the libs.
Is increasing a base Debian install by half a meg worth giving
developers a bit more convenience?
Guy
Reply to: