Re: /bin/perl
'Guy Maor wrote:'
>
>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.
[...]
>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.
Arghh! Now we know why I never made the debate team :) Let me try to
avoid 'emotion' this time.
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.
>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 ;)
>Guy
--
Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Design Science Revolutionary
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Explorer in Universe
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Linux Advocate
Reply to: