[ Note reply-to: lets get this to the right list! ]

Giles Lean wrote:

> > If anyone is counting.... Add my vote for perl (4.036) for the
> > simple reason of righting install scripts.
> 
> Nah.  You're already starting arguments about what version should
> be shipped.
[...]
> Build perl into an installable package, and make that available.

The point was that perl be available for the any package installation
tool to use.  If it's optional, package installation scripts can't
depend upon its existence.

Folks, like it or not, we have to recognise that perl has a special
status.  So many independent packages now depend upon perl that you've
got to consider it special anyway, and it's especially suitable for
doing the kind of things that you want to do at install time that
that's when you want it to be there.

On the other hand, version is a problem.  Perl has historically gone
through many periods when the "last really stable version" was always
the "standard production" version.  4.036 currently has that status.

I've personally torn both ways on this issue.  On the one hand, I'd
really like perl to be available to encourage package authors to write
good quality high functionality pre/post installation scripts.  On the
other, I'd really rather the base NetBSD distribution were a whole lot
smaller than it currently is.

So far, the only compromise I can thing of is that perl should
be included in any system that claims to accept binary packages,
so that installation scripts can depend upon its existence, but
that the package installation package itself be an option, placed
in binary form in the same archive location as the binary distribution
of NetBSD itself.

I didn't really want to get involved in this war ... but ...


-- 
Me: Ronald Khoo  Food: Roti Chanai  Drink: Tea, weak, milky without sugar
In Malaysia: ronald@cpm.com.my  +60 3   241 5232  Computer Protocol Malaysia
In England:  ronald@demon.net   +44 181 371 1000  Demon Internet Services