Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2012
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Mertens <dcmertens.perl@gmail.com> wrote: > You said miniperl but you meant microperl. busybox does not depend on > microperl or distribute it but it has documentation on how to build > microperl. There may be embedded systems out there running microperl just > because they could and it would be a shame to bump off something that > actually gets used (unlike UTS support, for example). > > I found a write-up by Simon about microperl and he mentioned that his work > on microperl turned up some bugs. Does the maintenance work keeping > microperl operational overshadow the bug-revealing benefit of keeping it? Is there any reason to actually prefer microperl over miniperl? Can't we just redirect to them to miniperl? This doesn't sound like a serious problem to me. LeonThread Previous | Thread Next