Hello, let me explain. I was told "they are doing this env clenup with python scripts don't you want to do it for perl as well?" My hands were quicker than my brain and I did the search. Only when I was about to post the results, I realized that I'm actually not convinced about the issue. The official reasoning is that if a system tool is written in Python, we want to "guarantee" that it works, so we would rather run it with Fedora Python, not with a random experimental Python. Likewise for Perl; if logrotate or some such were written in perl, it should just work (modulo Fedora Perl bugs), and the whole system should not crash just because of a random /usr/local/bin/perl. Actually, what Chris said seems to support this reasoning: > [...], especially as we can't replace the system > Perl as it may have OS implications. The sentence seems to support what is proposed here: the Fedora-delivered scripts should have /usr/bin/perl hardcoded, so that "OS implications" are avoided. Fedora users not satisfied with our system perl can place #!/usr/bin/env to _their_ scripts, so that the scripts mutate with every mutation of _their_ local build of perl.. But from this point of view, we should take care that Fedora-delivered shell script never call "perl"; they should always use /usr/bin/perl. Taking this to the extreme, one can never know what is deliberately put in the PATH, so we should carefully call /usr/bin/gawk, /bin/rm, etc. Or we should mahe sure to sanitize PATH at the begining of every script... As I said, I'm not fully convinced by the official reasoning. At this point of time, I do not see any flaw in Ralf's reasoning. But I do not want to engage in any war. Let's forget about this and return to more important issues. Stepan -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
