# [PATCH] Remove perl dependant commands if NO_PERL is set 6 messages from 2015-09-03 to 2015-09-03. Participants: garga@freebsd.org, Junio C Hamano, Renato Botelho. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/40264 ## garga@freebsd.org, 2015-09-03 16:35 Subject: [PATCH] Remove perl dependant commands if NO_PERL is set Message-ID: <1441298147-83601-1-git-send-email-garga@FreeBSD.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1441298147-83601-1-git-send-email-garga%40FreeBSD.org ``` From: Renato Botelho git-submodule and git-request-pull are written in sh but use perl internally. Add them to be replaced by unimplemented.sh when NO_PERL flag is set --- Makefile | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index e326fa0..4dae0ec 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -1795,7 +1795,7 @@ git-instaweb: git-instaweb.sh GIT-SCRIPT-DEFINES chmod +x $@+ && \ mv $@+ $@ else # NO_PERL -$(SCRIPT_PERL_GEN) git-instaweb: % : unimplemented.sh +$(SCRIPT_PERL_GEN) git-instaweb git-submodule git-request-pull: % : unimplemented.sh $(QUIET_GEN)$(RM) $@ $@+ && \ sed -e '1s|#!.*/sh|#!$(SHELL_PATH_SQ)|' \ -e 's|@@REASON@@|NO_PERL=$(NO_PERL)|g' \ -- 2.5.1 ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2015-09-03 19:11 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove perl dependant commands if NO_PERL is set Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqq7fo7jp1e.fsf%40gitster.mtv.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <1441298147-83601-1-git-send-email-garga@FreeBSD.org> ``` garga@FreeBSD.org writes: > From: Renato Botelho > > git-submodule and git-request-pull are written in sh but use perl > internally. Add them to be replaced by unimplemented.sh when NO_PERL > flag is set > --- Missing sign-off. You also may want to hold off the "git-submodule" bit, as I expect http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/277128/focus=277129 would be one of the first changes to be in 'master' after the upcoming release 2.6 (that is, it is likely that perl dependency would be removed in 2.7). > Makefile | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > index e326fa0..4dae0ec 100644 > --- a/Makefile > +++ b/Makefile > @@ -1795,7 +1795,7 @@ git-instaweb: git-instaweb.sh GIT-SCRIPT-DEFINES > chmod +x $@+ && \ > mv $@+ $@ > else # NO_PERL > -$(SCRIPT_PERL_GEN) git-instaweb: % : unimplemented.sh > +$(SCRIPT_PERL_GEN) git-instaweb git-submodule git-request-pull: % : unimplemented.sh > $(QUIET_GEN)$(RM) $@ $@+ && \ > sed -e '1s|#!.*/sh|#!$(SHELL_PATH_SQ)|' \ > -e 's|@@REASON@@|NO_PERL=$(NO_PERL)|g' \ ``` ## Renato Botelho, 2015-09-03 19:39 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove perl dependant commands if NO_PERL is set Message-ID: <2CFFD89E-7059-4C1C-B715-15C5F6C2D295@FreeBSD.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/2CFFD89E-7059-4C1C-B715-15C5F6C2D295%40FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: ``` > On Sep 3, 2015, at 16:11, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > garga@FreeBSD.org writes: > >> From: Renato Botelho >> >> git-submodule and git-request-pull are written in sh but use perl >> internally. Add them to be replaced by unimplemented.sh when NO_PERL >> flag is set >> --- > > Missing sign-off. > > You also may want to hold off the "git-submodule" bit, as I expect > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/277128/focus=277129 > would be one of the first changes to be in 'master' after the > upcoming release 2.6 (that is, it is likely that perl dependency > would be removed in 2.7). Can’t we add git-submodule to the list now, for 2.6, and then remove it when this change is pushed? This would help to have a sane tarball for 2.6. I’m considering this from a package maintainer perspective. I’ll re-send it with sign-off. -- Renato Botelho ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2015-09-03 19:56 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove perl dependant commands if NO_PERL is set Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqq37yvjmza.fsf%40gitster.mtv.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <2CFFD89E-7059-4C1C-B715-15C5F6C2D295@FreeBSD.org> ``` Renato Botelho writes: >> You also may want to hold off the "git-submodule" bit, as I expect >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/277128/focus=277129 >> would be one of the first changes to be in 'master' after the >> upcoming release 2.6 (that is, it is likely that perl dependency >> would be removed in 2.7). > > Can’t we add git-submodule to the list now, for 2.6, and then remove > it when this change is pushed? This would help to have a sane tarball > for 2.6. I’m considering this from a package maintainer perspective. Not really. Anything brand-new that comes this late in the cycle will not be in 2.6, so the earliest release this NO_PERL change can appear in is one after the upcoming release. ``` ## Renato Botelho, 2015-09-03 20:02 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove perl dependant commands if NO_PERL is set Message-ID: <86C44806-98FB-4E67-83DF-197103B48BB2@FreeBSD.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/86C44806-98FB-4E67-83DF-197103B48BB2%40FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: ``` > On Sep 3, 2015, at 16:56, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Renato Botelho writes: > >>> You also may want to hold off the "git-submodule" bit, as I expect >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/277128/focus=277129 >>> would be one of the first changes to be in 'master' after the >>> upcoming release 2.6 (that is, it is likely that perl dependency >>> would be removed in 2.7). >> >> Can’t we add git-submodule to the list now, for 2.6, and then remove >> it when this change is pushed? This would help to have a sane tarball >> for 2.6. I’m considering this from a package maintainer perspective. > > Not really. Anything brand-new that comes this late in the cycle > will not be in 2.6, so the earliest release this NO_PERL change can > appear in is one after the upcoming release. Even if it’s a bug that produce a broken installation? Nevermind, I’ll add the patch into FreeBSD ports so FreeBSD users can have a sane package installed. -- Renato Botelho ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2015-09-03 20:15 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove perl dependant commands if NO_PERL is set Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqr3mfi7jb.fsf%40gitster.mtv.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <86C44806-98FB-4E67-83DF-197103B48BB2@FreeBSD.org> ``` Renato Botelho writes: >> Not really. Anything brand-new that comes this late in the cycle >> will not be in 2.6, so the earliest release this NO_PERL change can >> appear in is one after the upcoming release. > > Even if it’s a bug that produce a broken installation? Absolutely. The way we do things around here is to do new features early in the cycle before -rc0, fixes to pre-existing bugs before -rc1 and after that we go to regression fixes only until the final. And use of Perl in submodule or request-pull is anything new in 2.6, I think. This is a fix to pre-existing issue, and I haven't tagged -rc1 yet, but speaking from experience, anything that I can poke a hole after staring at it for only 20 seconds (see my other message about this patch defining two different ways to build the same thing) has a high chance of having other issues that will hurt other people in a way other than the trivial "staring at it for 20-second" issue, which would introduce a real regression. Between an unknown regression and a known longstanding bug, we tend to take the latter. > Nevermind, I’ll add the patch into FreeBSD ports so FreeBSD users can > have a sane package installed. Sure. That would help in the long term, as it will result in a well-cooked fix in 2.7; by that time hopefully the 'submodule' bit would not be necessary, but request-pull may still be using Perl. ```