Archives
Archives
| From: | Drake Wyrm <wyrm@×××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | [gentoo-dev] Re: Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still? | ||
| Date: | Wed, 18 Jan 2006 04:22:57 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20060118041838.GA14563@phaenix.haell.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still? by Joshua Baergen |
||
| 1 | Joshua Baergen <joshuabaergen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 | > I'm all for less cruft and more simplicity. As far as I know none of |
| 3 | > the Portage tools depend on Perl, so I don't really find a 'nuclear |
| 4 | > fallout has caused dynamic linking to be erratic' situation to be that |
| 5 | > important. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | Portage is not the only important system tool. Some of us actually use |
| 8 | Perl. Please do not be with the breaking. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | -- |
| 11 | my other signature is witty |
| 12 | -- |
| 13 | gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still? | Joshua Baergen <joshuabaergen@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Does anyone want|need a static (lib)perl still? | Michael Cummings <mcummings@g.o> |