[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: /bin/perl

On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Chris Fearnley wrote:

> Arghh!  Now we know why I never made the debate team :)  Let me try to
> avoid 'emotion' this time.

Huh?  No emotion is implied by 'argue'.

> fsstnd-1.2 says:
> /bin contains commands that may be used by both the system
> administrator and by users, but which are required in single user
> mode.  It may also contain commands which are used indirectly by
> scripts.
> I don't think perl is /required/ in single-user mode.  And it's not
> required for /sbin/init or /etc/init.d/boot (which as far as I can
> tell are the first things run at boot-up).  Except for run-parts which
> is called in /etc/init.d/boot, but /after/ all filesystems are
> mounted.

Required is a nebulous term.  Required by whom?  If I install the perl
script superspecial in /sbin because I need it to bring up my system,
then perl is required.  If I also happen to be the maintainer of the
latest Linux distribution, GreenHatGuyWareian, then plenty of people
also require perl on their root partitions.  perl in /bin is not
necessarily a breach of the FSSTND.

In any case, I glossed over the location of a perl in my original
post.  There are two questions to consider
1) Should perl be on the base Debian disks?
2) If so, should it get installed in /bin?

I'm advocating yes to 1.  I agree with most of you that the answer to 2
should be no; I'm merely playing devil's advocate to make sure we make
the right decision.

> >Is increasing a base Debian install by half a meg worth giving
> >developers a bit more convenience?
> I'd put fsstnd ahead of convenience.  I do value minimalism though ;)

This is probably obvious in light of my earlier words, but base !=


> "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller
Hooray!  Buckminster and I share a birthday.

Reply to: