On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:13:49AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:10:53AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can't (yet).  Use of a non-pkgsrc perl isn't something that pkgsrc
> > > > supports because a non-pkgsrc perl won't look in the right spots for
> > > > pkgsrc-installed perl5 modules.  We don't (yet) have a way to say
> > > > "I only want the perl binary and nothing else".
> > >
> > > I haven't actually tried it, but I think the module's Makefile.PL will
> > > install it to the "right" place, and that the logic in bsd.pkg.mk will
> > > find that place and register it correctly. I'm just not sure that we
> > > want to encourage that. It's bad enough how pkgsrc competes with CPAN;
> > > it'll be worse on OpenBSD with OpenBSD ports in the picture.
> >
> > Yes, you're partly right -- it used to work, but with my most recent
> > changes to perl5/module.mk, all perl5 site modules are forced to be
> > installed under ${PREFIX}.
> >
> > I was thinking that the USE_PERL5=run case could be satisfied with a
> > system perl5 installation, but any stronger dependency would have
> > necessitate installing the pkgsrc perl5.
> 
> That could be very messy. You install a module as a dependency into
> pkgsrc perl, but then you actually run the base system perl? I think
> it best to let the user shoot himself in the foot if he wants to, but
> not to hold the gun for him.

Hey, works for me!  Less complexity for pkgsrc and for the user :)
I'll hold off on working on those changes.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>