Re: Perl 5.6.0 Is Here!
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > Since we're just a few people and Debian users are a multitude, I
> > think we should build them both.
>
> Hm, the perl-thread package in debian is clearly marked as experimental,
> and nothing at all depends on it. All users of the package would thus be local
> users. Since installing the perl 5.6.0 packages would not cause that package
> to be removed or stop working anyway, I don't think local scripts that use the
> old thread model will be broken either. So I don't see a great need to include
> both.
Yeah. Do we really want to let perl proliferate packages much further?
> > Q: How about a shared libperl? Cons: It would require the libperl.so
> > to be on the boot floppy, and it would impose a performance penalty
> > of, what, 10% or so? Pros: It would allow mod_perl, vim, and other
> > tools that use Perl to use libperl.so, cutting total disk usage.
>
> I thought last time this came up there was a decision to make a libperl,
> just not link /usr/bin/perl itself to it. So there would be some
> duplication, but less than there is now, and this would be a bit smaller.
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1274960 Mar 26 09:08 /usr/bin/vim*
>
> I don't care if perl is 10% slower whewn I run it inside vim. I _do_ care
> if my cgi script on my production webserver slows down by 10%.
But if you run a production webserver with mod_perl... I think the book
is still open on using a shared libperl on an intel webserver. On less
register starved architectures, of course, it is much less of an issue.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: