Am I not getting mail from everyone here, or is it just quiet?
mike at urgle.com
Wed Jan 15 11:14:44 GMT 2003
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 09:35:43PM +0000, Peter McGarvey wrote:
> * Frank Shute <frank at esperance-linux.co.uk> [2003-01-12 20:42:22 GMT]:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:57:23PM +0000, Peter McGarvey wrote:
> > What I still don't understand is ripping perl out of base - I suppose
> > it must have been too much effort to maintain it.
The reason was, as I understand it, twofold. Firstly, stuffing perl
into the 'make buildworld && make installworld' paradigm is hard.
Secondly, perl is bloating. Ripping out things like
Pointless::Specialized::Module means that FreeBSD's perl isn't
_really_ perl, but leaving them in the base system means that base
system bloats, which is bad.
It's something that the perl guys took on board, but is not going
to be a quick fix. And they might not fix it anyway.
> And FreeBSD's perl is mildly out of date, which is mildy irritating.
Difficult to do a major requires-user-to-reinstall-all-perlish-ports
upgrade in FreeBSD x-STABLE (I think perl-5.6 and perl-5.8 aren't
> I don't like sendmail but I think it should be the default. Arguing the
> merits of different MTAs of is one of those holy wars which makes all
> contestants look bad.
Actually, I think the default MTA should look enough like sendmail
to satisfy a MUA, but merely shove mail at a smarthost. Think sSMTP
(it's in /usr/ports/mail/ssmtp).
Most of the time, boxes shouldn't recieve mail at all, without
administrator thought and action, and I see no reason why that
action cannot start with 'the base MTA won't do; which one will'
rather than 'I hate the base MTA, which one shall I use'.
You can't do maths without e
-- David Walters
More information about the Ukfreebsd