From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D14203E2 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752909AbcGYUmZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:25 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:51686 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752835AbcGYUmX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:23 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1E12EE1B; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:22 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=T1Ylj23T1c/F bpT3/JQpEyxHVZI=; b=dfe6sk1oavPI7x+fIPwvuAWDaK3oyWS7BkvrPkQh4oyC 3esdqlOWA61+MVDHbF4B+lbrfpzNlmFf69N2bgjoUhDP49VOZfMPx8nVl5lbok9a cGBMnY76ntJxXgCU4DLpPt+nMrK8oM+8u4oMhe1esXc4k958a938ps9LqWXB6bE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=MSYPAz J/xUGZJ567KcmRSdy81wabbSt/K1U9VZjmnzBlPIBEywxbj9L9A0R5jjb11+cq7P WNUMIAHdM+6nKJqeZTaktk+4EKU97L0iTrIriGas2zMdhH75a4siNGn1LMkQb2mL HukHgTJiXHrjLCFBeTe2j4NWGKkdGUiscW/sM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4703F2EE1A; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C50232EE19; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Wong Cc: Duy Nguyen , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] config.mak.uname: correct perl path on FreeBSD References: <20160725162125.15734-1-pclouds@gmail.com> <20160725203316.GA32053@starla> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:42:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160725203316.GA32053@starla> (Eric Wong's message of "Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:33:16 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 493E24EE-52A8-11E6-ADAC-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Wong writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Duy Nguyen writes: >> >> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: >> >>> It looks the the symlink /usr/bin/perl (to /usr/local/bin/perl) has >> >>> been removed at least on FreeBSD 10.3. See [1] for more information. >> >>> >> >>> [1] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/UPDATING?r1=386270&r2=386269&pathrev=386270&diff_format=c > > Ah, I missed that. I guess that explains why nobody complained > about the problem sooner. > >> >>> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy >> >>> --- >> >>> Tested with fbsd 10.3, kvm image. But I suppose it's the same as real >> >>> fbsd. >> >> >> >> Thanks; and we know that older (but not too old that we no longer care about) >> >> FreeBSD all have /usr/local/bin/perl? >> > >> > I'm no fbsd expert but from the first sentence in [1] "Perl has been >> > removed from base more than ten years ago..." I would assume it meant >> > "... removed from base, _to_ ports system" which means /usr/local for >> > all package installation (for ten years for perl). So I think we are >> > good. >> >> I guess we didn't follow through >> >> http://public-inbox.org/git/%3C20160720025630.GA71874%40plume%3E/ >> >> and allowed the thread to drift into a tangent? > > +Cc Dscho > > I've been meaning to followup on that, but had connectivity > problems to my VM last week. I still prefer we use numeric > comparisons for version numbers since numbers are... numeric. > IOW, I prefer we go with my original patch. I tend to agree with you if we have to do "systems older than this should use /usr/bin, others should use /usr/local/bin", but this different incarnation of the same topic seems to claim that older ones had /usr/local/bin forever anyway, and that was what made the patch interesting.