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 !=
/bin.
Guy
> "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller
Hooray! Buckminster and I share a birthday.
Reply to: