RFC: change to bsd.perl.mk

[Chris Rees]

On 17 July 2011 01:47, Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 07/16/2011 17:35, Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
>>> If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs?
>>>
>>> Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk, or have I missed
>>> something?
>>
>> In a perfect world we'd have -exp runs for everything, I suppose.  OTOH
>> here in the real world there's plenty of lower-risk changes that can be
>> done without.  If in doubt, we can always do one.
>>
>> Take a look a the various commits in ports/Mk for examples of what's
>> been done in the past.
>
> A) If the file is unconditionally included the idea of administrative
> separation is false security. There is no reason that the appropriate
> perl folks can't have permission to twiddle that stuff in bpm.
>
> B) Focusing on this part of the problem detracts from the more important
> point that the thing should be conditionally included, and that whatever
> needs to be fixed to make that happen should be fixed.
>

Doug,

Am I right in thinking from your comments in the past that you would
be willing to form a team to achieve this goal?

I think you're right, and it should be done -- count me in.

Chris