On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Simon Burge wrote:
> Part of the problem is that I don't think we'd know what all the perl
> `categories' are in advance, so this list could be ever changing.

Well, we do know, as we need to work on each p5-* pkg. 


> Perhaps best for now would be:
> 
> 	@unexec rm -r %D/lib/perl5/site_perl/${MACHINE_ARCH}-${LOWER_OPSYS}/auto
> 
> somewhere in lang/perl5's PLIST-mi.

And not list the file in any of the other PLISTs, ok.


> Cool - there's about a dozen other p5 packages that use the "ugly"
> construct.  Shall I change those?  The www/p5-libwww case it a bit
> ugly though, and looks like it will need some sed'ing either way...

Maybe ask the maintainers first... I wouldn't mind shaving off a few
cycles. 


> > Something else:
> > Perl does not support shared objects etc. on all our archs, and thus the
> > .so and .bs file will not be there. Example archs are (I think) pmax and
> > alpha (don't ask that's perl...). See e.g. security/p5-MD5 for a
> > workaround using different PLISTs. 
> 
> Yuck!  I'll do this for my package for now.
> 
> Hmm, both pmax and alpha are ok - maybe it might be time to deprecate
> non shared support.  I wonder about pc532, vax, perhaps powerpc...

Please note that the decision whether to use PLIST-md.shared or
PLIST-md.static is used is fixed in bsd.pkg.mk. I think if your PLIST
works on pmax and alpha as well, we should leave it the way it is.

PLIST-m* is an ugly hack anyways.


 - Hubert

-- 
NetBSD - Better for your uptime than Viagra