Ug.  ALL packages will need some kind of pre-requisites (even if it's just
/bin/sh).  Some need perl.  Fine.  Say so.  Then, the only one you absolutely
-need- to make indifferent to perl is the perl package itself.  Sheesh.
Unless the core installation needs it (and it doesn't, obviously, and thank
your diety here), then forget it.  Let's get on with it, folks.

Most MS-DOS would-be-NetBSD-converts look at NetBSD and say, "60MB?!?!?"
w/o even realizing that we include a C compiler, much less all the other stuff.
I use Perl every week in sysadmin duties, but I don't want it in the dist.

I won't even touch the issues regarding Perl 4.036+ scripts not running under
Perl 5.  And the slippery-slope issue.  I like an scale-up system, not a
trim-down one (ever see MS-Win?).

====Now the pseudo-redeeming conversation====
What is the state of source-code packages?  I personally don't run binaries
I didn't compile (aside from the ones that come with NetBSD).  In reference
to the compiled-in pathname discussion, it would be nice to see a package
installation tool that allowed you to grab a software package and make it
with a standard command... maybe even make it scalable to many platforms so
that authors could distribute little package-install-files that allow you to
configure it for a given platform (e.g. ./make-NetBSD).  Note that since
make syntaxes differ, it would have to be higher-level than that (probably).
Then again, we could convince them all to use /usr/share/mk stuff, but maybe
I'm dreaming. :)  How close is ``configure'' to what I have described?
PS: I like the idea of pre-requisite handling in the package installer tool.
-- 
VaX#n8 (vak-sa-nate) - n, CS senior++ and Unix junkie - vax@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Just the vax-man.  Read my MIPS, no new VAXes!        - PGP key on request