Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 09:48 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>> We don't require perl for any other feature, do we? Seems like a
>>> pretty onerous requireemnt for Windows in particular. We do use perl
>>> in the build scripts, but that's only required if you want to compile
>>> from source.
>>>
>> Well, from that POV the only portable thing is to translate it into C.
>> That's just a whole lot more work (remember initdb?). The perl port for
>> Windows is easily installable, widely used and well regarded. It doesn't
>> strike me as too high a price to pay for the ability to do upgrades, but
>> I'll defer to more Windows-centric commenters.
>>
>
> Actually as much as perl is ubiquitous it isn't. What version of perl
> shall we require? Will we require other modules? Does that version work
> on all our supported platforms (HPUX, NETBSD?)
>
>
>
That's what my brief examination of the script was about - looking to
see if it could be translated portably. I think it very probably can. I
suspect it won't need any modules at all. I suspect any
cheers
andrew
