Home > Archive > PERL Miscellaneous > September 2005 > Learning Perl
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| yamuna 2005-09-24, 6:57 pm |
| I have Windows XP at home, i.e no Unix or Linux. I have no access to
Unix/Linux.
In order to run Perl codes , what should I install?
| |
|
| On 2005-09-24, yamuna <yamunamyint@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have Windows XP at home, i.e no Unix or Linux. I have no access to
> Unix/Linux.
>
> In order to run Perl codes , what should I install?
>
install cygwin (www.cygwin.com)
| |
| A. Sinan Unur 2005-09-24, 6:57 pm |
| "yamuna" <yamunamyint@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1127604882.637891.55670
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I have Windows XP at home, i.e no Unix or Linux. I have no access to
> Unix/Linux.
>
> In order to run Perl codes , what should I install?
There are many Perl distributions for Windows. I am sure you are able to
search Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=perl+windows
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(reverse each component and remove .invalid for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://mail.augustmail.com/~tadmc/c...guidelines.html
| |
| yamuna 2005-09-24, 9:56 pm |
|
Mike wrote:
> On 2005-09-24, yamuna <yamunamyint@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> install cygwin (www.cygwin.com)
It's safe, right. Windows pop-up said "This files does not have a valid
digital signature that verifies it spublisher..."
| |
|
|
| Bill Segraves 2005-09-24, 9:56 pm |
| "yamuna" <yamunamyint@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127604882.637891.55670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I have Windows XP at home, i.e no Unix or Linux. I have no access to
> Unix/Linux.
>
> In order to run Perl codes , what should I install?
>
IndigoPerl, available free from www.indigostar.com.
--
Bill Segraves
| |
| Tassilo v. Parseval 2005-09-25, 3:58 am |
| Also sprach yamuna:
> Mike wrote:
>
> It's safe, right. Windows pop-up said "This files does not have a valid
> digital signature that verifies it spublisher..."
It is safe, yes. However, if you want to learn Perl and you're possibly
more familiar with the Windows environment (which is what your posting
suggests) I wouldn't use cygwin for it. cygwin is a UNIX environment
ported to Windows and it's easier to learn one thing than to learn two
things simultaneously.
I'd therefore go for ActivePerl or IndigoPerl as it has been suggested
elsewhere in this thread. After that you could consider using perl under
cygwin or even install a real Linux. Perl is a lot more fun and also
easier if you have access to a C compiler and a make-tool.
Tassilo
--
use bigint;
$n=7142335034377028016139702633033737113
9054411854220053437565440;
$m=-8,;;$_=$n&(0xff)<<$m,,$_>>=$m,,print+chr,,while(($m+=8)<=200);
| |
| Tim Hammerquist 2005-09-25, 3:58 am |
| yamuna <yamunamyint@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> It's safe, right. Windows pop-up said "This files does not
> have a valid digital signature that verifies it spublisher..."
No, it's not safe. It installs dangerous viral software on your
computer, known as "GPL". This software is programmed by rural
farmers in their spare time and performs malicious acts on your
Windows system, including but not limited to:
- enabling the use of valuable unix-style tools and
applications.
- lowering the economic and monetary value of expensive,
commercial software by making inexpensive, powerful software
available.
- installing perl.
- installing a free X11 server, a system which would cost more
than $100 from commercial vendors, further reducing the
value of more commercial software.
If you trust Windows pop-ups over the people in this newsgroup,
I'm wondering why you asked us.
That said, let me provide you with some links, one found through
<http://www.perl.com>, the other through <http://www.perl.org>,
which are the first two sites found when googling for "perl":
<http://www.perl.com/download.csp#win32> and
<http://www.cpan.org/ports/#win32> both list ActivePerl
<http://www.activestate.com/ActivePerl/> as the preferred and
first option, respectively, for those insisting on a binary
distribution.
If your eventual goal is CGI or web development with perl, I'd
probably suggest IndigoPerl
<http://www.indigostar.com/indigoperl.htm> instead, as it comes
with an Apache+mod_perl webserver included.
Bon voyage!
Tim Hammerquist
--
"There are some benefits to high blood pressure", Bob mused as another
mosquito exploded. -- Bulwer-Lytton contest entry, author unknown.
| |
| Jürgen Exner 2005-09-25, 7:57 am |
| yamuna wrote:
> I have Windows XP at home, i.e no Unix or Linux. I have no access to
> Unix/Linux.
>
> In order to run Perl codes , what should I install?
_THE_ standard Perl distribution for Windows is ActivePerl fromn
ActiveState, see http://activestate.com/
It is free, too.
jue
| |
|
|
| yamuna 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
|
Brian Wakem wrote:
> yamuna wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes you do, it is freely downloadable.
Yes, yes, yes. I am trying to reach to that stage of having a PC with
Linux. It's not $$ issue. Long story.
>
>
> --
> Brian Wakem
> Email: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/myemail.png
| |
| yamuna 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| > No, it's not safe. I
I am glad I asked. I'd rather be cautious and play safe, i.e not lose
time fixing too many unexpected problem and proceed with my goal.
>If you trust Windows pop-ups over the people in this newsgroup,
>I'm wondering why you asked us.
I don't trust those but
life's situation has been pretty bad and my project to build a PC on
my own (bought parts last year June) , put Linux had been postponed I
am stuck with windows still. I just need to get started on Perl but I
will get to linux and also rid of IE. I have to do it with my pace; I
will get there.
>That said, let me provide you with some links,
Thanks. I did google search and saw activePerl but it helps to know
which one is good for what purpose, etc.
<snip>
| |
| yamuna 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| Thanks everyone.
| |
| John Bokma 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> cygwin or even install a real Linux. Perl is a lot more fun and also
> easier if you have access to a C compiler and a make-tool.
For Windows there is nmake (
http://johnbokma.com/perl/make-for-windows.html )
and it was just last month or so that for the very first time I had to
compile some C (PAR) for Perl on Windows.
In short: for learning Perl you probably don't need C (which probably has
to be learned as well) for the next few years. Make, maybe, but nmake
should do the trick unless you do need a C compiler.
Wrt cygwin, I agree. Have been using it for several months, and if you are
an XP user, just don't install it. And if you're a Unix user: you might be
better of without cygwin and XP, or you might be able to get away by
installing some GNU ports (ls, rm, etc.). (IMHO).
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
| |
| yamuna 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| > In short: for learning Perl you probably don't need C (which probably has
>to be learned as well) for the next few years. Make, maybe, but nmake
>should do the trick unless you do need a C compiler.
I know C++ (not a pro but decent) and a bit of C terms. Plan to get
Linux and hope to learn system programming using C. (These are all my
dreams.)
Thanks.
| |
| Tassilo v. Parseval 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| X-Trace: news.dfncis.de K2Sl35xX+JlkI41nsE8ZBArc1M8mW2yyuDufSboa
WGwfcTeu2BFdRybu8Z
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.perl.misc:583056
Also sprach John Bokma:
> "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
>
> For Windows there is nmake (
> http://johnbokma.com/perl/make-for-windows.html )
>
> and it was just last month or so that for the very first time I had to
> compile some C (PAR) for Perl on Windows.
>
> In short: for learning Perl you probably don't need C (which probably has
> to be learned as well) for the next few years. Make, maybe, but nmake
> should do the trick unless you do need a C compiler.
I mentioned the C compiler with respect to the installation of some
modules. nmake would be the first thing to install next to ActivePerl
because ppm is IMHO only an extremely poor replacement for the CPAN
shell. Most of the time it doesn't work and if it worked then the module
to be installed is most likely not available as ppm package.
> Wrt cygwin, I agree. Have been using it for several months, and if you are
> an XP user, just don't install it. And if you're a Unix user: you might be
> better of without cygwin and XP, or you might be able to get away by
> installing some GNU ports (ls, rm, etc.). (IMHO).
cygwin is just like ppm another poor replacement for the real thing.
Tassilo
--
use bigint;
$n=7142335034377028016139702633033737113
9054411854220053437565440;
$m=-8,;;$_=$n&(0xff)<<$m,,$_>>=$m,,print+chr,,while(($m+=8)<=200);
| |
| Alan J. Flavell 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, John Bokma wrote:
> "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
Are you chaps really answering the question (at the assumed level of
the those who are likely to ask it), or are you just having a
discussion at your own level?
Anyone considering starting Perl, and wanting to work on Windows,
indeed has these choices, between a Win-native Perl (such as
ActiveState Perl, or the Indigoperl package for those who happen to
want an easy CGI bundle including Perl and Apache) on the one hand, or
Cygwin on the other hand.
But they aren't really in competition to each other. Anyone wanting
to go the Cygwin route should take a good look at what it is and what
they'd be getting. To put it briefly: a unix-like environment inside
Windows (and then, Perl inside that, along with a vast range of free
application and development software). If that's what they want, then
go ahead - I'd certainly install it, for lots of good reasons - but
I wouldn't see it as an /alternative/ to native Windows Perl.
On the other hand, if the questioner just wants to get started, and
wants to use Perl to drive Windows applications in a Windows-
flavoured environment, then a native Perl such as ActiveState would be
a good choice now. Btw. that comes with quite a neat HTML-ised
interface to the Perl documentation, both the core and the
Win-specific. Later, one can certainly consider installing Cygwin
Perl, and having the best of both worlds without having to leave
Windows. (I'm going to have to add that running a real OS is yet
another option, but I'm trying to answer on the assumption of a
questioner who wants to stick with Windows as the actual OS).
[color=darkred]
> For Windows there is nmake (
> http://johnbokma.com/perl/make-for-windows.html )
OK
> and it was just last month or so that for the very first time I had
> to compile some C (PAR) for Perl on Windows.
Haven't done that myself, I must admit: AIUI if you want to build Perl
stuff for native Windows, then you need the same C compiler as one's
Perl installation was built with, nicht wahr? Which might mean a
chargeable licensed product. I've no problem in principle with paying
the money, but it's a considerable drag keeping track of software
licences...
> In short: for learning Perl you probably don't need C (which
> probably has to be learned as well) for the next few years. Make,
> maybe, but nmake should do the trick unless you do need a C
> compiler.
Indeed. And as Tassilo rightly said about native Perl versus Cygwin,
it's easier to learn one thing at once than two. Put Cygwin off for
later - maybe even after having sampled Perl under a unix-like OS such
as linux.
> Wrt cygwin, I agree. Have been using it for several months, and if
> you are an XP user, just don't install it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pardon me?
As a matter of fact we install the cygwin core on all our windows XP
systems (supported desktops and laptops), if only to get the free X
Windows server, so that our Win-based users can also work comfortably
with the linux systems. Having done that, the users can have as many
of the cygwin applications as they want - Perl not excluded.
hope this makes some kind of sense.
| |
| Tassilo v. Parseval 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| Also sprach Alan J. Flavell:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, John Bokma wrote:
>
>
> Are you chaps really answering the question (at the assumed level of
> the those who are likely to ask it), or are you just having a
> discussion at your own level?
Isn't it generally assumed to be accidental if a question of a poster is
in fact answered? ;-)
Having said that, I wouldn't consider it a discussion at our own level.
I genuinly believe that cygwin should not be recommended to a beginner,
much less so to someone beginning to learn Perl. So I suggested one of
the native Windows distributions even though I know at least a few
shortcomings of ActivePerl. I reckon those quirks are less annoying
to a beginner than some of cygwin's peculiarities.
>
> Haven't done that myself, I must admit: AIUI if you want to build Perl
> stuff for native Windows, then you need the same C compiler as one's
> Perl installation was built with, nicht wahr?
This is what they say although in my experience this is not necessarily
true. At least on Solaris I was able to make modules run with both the
gcc and SUN's native compiler...for the same perl.
> Which might mean a chargeable licensed product. I've no problem in
> principle with paying the money, but it's a considerable drag keeping
> track of software licences...
MS now distributes a compiler kit for no charge which can be used with
ActivePerl. However, and so I am back to the original point I raised,
it's still not always trivial as many modules appear to be written with
the gcc in mind and thus make use of extenions not part of any
C-standard.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Pardon me?
[...]
I have reasons for some grievances of my own when it comes to cygwin.
But those are better discussed somewhere else.
Tassilo
--
use bigint;
$n=7142335034377028016139702633033737113
9054411854220053437565440;
$m=-8,;;$_=$n&(0xff)<<$m,,$_>>=$m,,print+chr,,while(($m+=8)<=200);
| |
| John Bokma 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Also sprach John Bokma:
>
>
> I mentioned the C compiler with respect to the installation of some
> modules. nmake would be the first thing to install next to ActivePerl
> because ppm is IMHO only an extremely poor replacement for the CPAN
> shell.
You might be right. However, it works most of the times here. I rarely
have to use nmake. As for a C compiler, only recently with PAR.
> Most of the time it doesn't work
Weird, my experience is: most of the time it works :-)
> and if it worked then the
> module to be installed is most likely not available as ppm package.
Huh? And AFAIK, you can use the CPAN shell with ActiveState. I stick
with ppm for now.
>
> cygwin is just like ppm another poor replacement for the real thing.
Yup, the reason that I removed it was that it was confusing to me most
of the time :-)
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
| |
| John Bokma 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, John Bokma wrote:
>
also[color=darkred]
>
> Are you chaps really answering the question (at the assumed level of
> the those who are likely to ask it), or are you just having a
> discussion at your own level?
Is this Usenet? :-)
[ snip ]
>
> Haven't done that myself, I must admit: AIUI if you want to build Perl
> stuff for native Windows, then you need the same C compiler as one's
> Perl installation was built with, nicht wahr? Which might mean a
> chargeable licensed product.
No, since MS makes the command line stuff available for free. That's how
I got it working :-D.
> I've no problem in principle with paying
> the money, but it's a considerable drag keeping track of software
> licences...
You don't, see above :-).
>
> Pardon me?
I think you deleted the IMHO part. Also, it was an answer to the OP, who
wants to learn Perl ;-)
> As a matter of fact we install the cygwin core on all our windows XP
> systems (supported desktops and laptops), if only to get the free X
> Windows server, so that our Win-based users can also work comfortably
> with the linux systems. Having done that, the users can have as many
> of the cygwin applications as they want - Perl not excluded.
>
> hope this makes some kind of sense.
Yes, it does. Differences in requirements. Also, why not VNC?
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
| |
| John Bokma 2005-09-25, 6:58 pm |
| "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> I have reasons for some grievances of my own when it comes to cygwin.
> But those are better discussed somewhere else.
:-D
I snipped a bit too much, I am curious as of the short comings of
ActiveState (or other Window versions) Perl.
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
| |
| Alan J. Flavell 2005-09-25, 9:56 pm |
| On Mon, 25 Sep 2005, John Bokma wrote:
>
> "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I think you deleted the IMHO part.
With respect, I think you expressed yourself too cryptically for a
clear understanding of your intention.
> Also, it was an answer to the OP, who wants to learn Perl ;-)
I already agreed that for a Windows user, installing a native Windows
port such as ActiveState is probably the best first move, so it seems
we are in agreement.
I just didn't understand your specific reference to "XP" (as opposed
to Windows in general, maybe).
[...]
>
> Yes, it does. Differences in requirements. Also, why not VNC?
An interesting question, but would seem to take us a bit too far off
topic for this group, I fear. Perhaps my throwaway remark explaining
X as our original motivation for installing cygwin base was itself too
far off-topic - if so, then my apologies.
| |
|
|
| Tassilo v. Parseval 2005-09-26, 3:56 am |
| Also sprach John Bokma:
> "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> You might be right. However, it works most of the times here. I rarely
> have to use nmake. As for a C compiler, only recently with PAR.
Once a module is not (yet) available as ppm package you'll most likely
need nmake.
>
> Huh? And AFAIK, you can use the CPAN shell with ActiveState. I stick
> with ppm for now.
Quite so, often enough I ended up using the CPAN shell. I've had
numerous problems with ppm in the past: IIRC it doesn't follow
prerequisites so those have to be installed manually. For each
installation you first need to issue a query before installing a
package. I've had cases that a query returned multiple hits for a
module. When I was lucky they had different versions but I also had
cases that a release was reported twice in which case ppm was so
 that it wasn't able to install any of those. This can happen if
you have specified more than one ppm repository to search.
Upgrading modules often turned out to be a nuisance. Apparently ppm uses
two different commands for installing and upgrading. Even when using the
correct one it didn't reproducibly work for me. Furthermore, ppm never
gives any visual feedback of its doings.
The best part was of course when I upgraded Storable and ppm would no
longer allow me to start its shell. Mind you, I was still able to use it
via command-line ('ppm install ...'). But in this mode ppm is stateless
and you can't first search for a module and then install it. I had to
download the .ppd file along with the .tar.gz and do a local install
instead.
I am citing from memory here and there were some nasty and inordinately
unhelpfull error messages that I no longer recall for a few of those
incidents. Those things date back to the times when I was using Windows
and ActivePerl for learning Perl. Sometimes I still need to fire up
Windows and ActivePerl again for testing things with my modules. With
respect to ppm things haven't improved a lot and so I've stopped
making ppm packages for my modules lest I have to deal with other
people's ppm troubles.
>
> Yup, the reason that I removed it was that it was confusing to me most
> of the time :-)
I only used it for Perl. The last time I used it it had wrecked CPAN.pm
for me. Apparently my username (default name given during cygwin
installation) contained a space. So CPAN.pm dowloaded a distribution but
was then not capable of finding it because a path such as
/home/username with space/.cpan/build/Module-$VER.tar.gz
was evidently too tricky to deal with.
Tassilo
--
use bigint;
$n=7142335034377028016139702633033737113
9054411854220053437565440;
$m=-8,;;$_=$n&(0xff)<<$m,,$_>>=$m,,print+chr,,while(($m+=8)<=200);
| |
| Joe Smith 2005-09-26, 3:56 am |
| yamuna wrote:
>
> Yes, yes, yes. I am trying to reach to that stage of having a PC with
> Linux. It's not $$ issue. Long story.
FYI: On a PC still running Windows 2000 (or anything else using VFAT
instead of NTFS), you can run 'parted' to shrink the size of the C:
partition, then install Linux on the same disk. The boot process
will then ask if you want to run Linux or Windows at startup time.
The XP machine I use at work has VMware installed, with three
virtual machines. One for RedHat-AS2.1, one for RedHat-ES3, and
one for Fedora Linux. That's one way of being able to run Linux
and XP at the same time.
-Joe
| |
| A. Sinan Unur 2005-09-26, 8:01 am |
| "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote in
news:slrndjfe11.ra.tassilo.von.parseval@localhost.localdomain:
> Also sprach John Bokma:
>
>
>
> Once a module is not (yet) available as ppm package you'll most likely
> need nmake.
I was lucky(!) enough to have bought MSVC4 way back when, so I did not
have to figure out where to download that: The only time I felt good
about that purchase.
>
> Quite so, often enough I ended up using the CPAN shell. I've had
> numerous problems with ppm in the past:
ppm has worked for me without major problems. That does not mean there
was no problems, but rather, no problems I can remember off the top of
my head.
> IIRC it doesn't follow prerequisites so those have to be
> installed manually.
I don't think this was true by the time I started learning Perl a few
years back.
> Upgrading modules often turned out to be a nuisance.
That still seems to be true.
> Apparently ppm uses two different commands for installing
> and upgrading.
I found life to be easier if I first remove the package, and install the
new version.
....
I have been using cygwin for longer than I care to remember. As a Unix
environment in Windows, it has been extremely useful. You just need to
keep the two worlds apart. The easiest way I have found of doing so was
to add all the cygwin paths to the end of my usual Windows path.
However, when I start the cygwin shell, the batch file adds those paths
to the front as well.
This way, I can use all the cygwin command line tools while working from
cmd.exe, but use ActiveState Perl.
When I am in cygwin bash, OTOH, the cygwin perl is first in the path.
I have had zero problems with this set up (including running native
Apache + mod_perl and cygwin apache + mod_perl simultaneously - using
different ports, obviously).
[color=darkred]
> I only used it for Perl. The last time I used it it had wrecked
> CPAN.pm for me. Apparently my username (default name given during
> cygwin installation) contained a space. So CPAN.pm dowloaded a
> distribution but was then not capable of finding it because a path
> such as
>
> /home/username with space/.cpan/build/Module-$VER.tar.gz
>
> was evidently too tricky to deal with.
Sadly, that might still be true. Whenever I get a new XP system, I
create a D:\Home. My userid is always a string with no spaces in it. In
addition, I move the "My Documents" folder to D:\Home\userid. I can then
change the user name displayed by Windows using the "Users" option in
Control Panel.
OTOH, I gave up using CPAN with either of cygwin or AS Perl after a few
tries. The XS modules I have compiled (using msvc command line tools for
AS Perl, or gcc for cygwin) always worked without a hitch. on FreeBSD, I
use the ports collection except in the few cases where a module is not
in the ports tree (in which case, I go the command line compilation
route, rather than CPAN).
I don't know where I am going with this. Just my experience, FWIW.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(reverse each component and remove .invalid for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://mail.augustmail.com/~tadmc/c...guidelines.html
| |
| John Bokma 2005-09-26, 6:58 pm |
| "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Also sprach John Bokma:
>
>
>
> Once a module is not (yet) available as ppm package you'll most likely
> need nmake.
Yup, but that's just a very small download, and easy to find ;-)
>
> Quite so, often enough I ended up using the CPAN shell. I've had
> numerous problems with ppm in the past: IIRC it doesn't follow
> prerequisites so those have to be installed manually.
It does follow them :-)
> For each
> installation you first need to issue a query before installing a
> package.
Unless you know it's name, I mean: install some-name works for me.
> I've had cases that a query returned multiple hits for a
> module. When I was lucky they had different versions but I also had
> cases that a release was reported twice in which case ppm was so
> that it wasn't able to install any of those.
Weird, I have seen this too, and IIRC it always installed the highest
version number.
> This can happen if
> you have specified more than one ppm repository to search.
I have never had problems with this.
> Upgrading modules often turned out to be a nuisance. Apparently ppm
> uses two different commands for installing and upgrading. Even when
> using the correct one it didn't reproducibly work for me.
Weird, since it does for me, for years :-) If it was that broken, it
would have been fixed ages ago.
> Furthermore, ppm never
> gives any visual feedback of its doings.
My best guess is you have a ppm program that does something completely
different.
> The best part was of course when I upgraded Storable and ppm would no
> longer allow me to start its shell. Mind you, I was still able to use
> it via command-line ('ppm install ...'). But in this mode ppm is
> stateless and you can't first search for a module and then install it.
> I had to download the .ppd file along with the .tar.gz and do a local
> install instead.
???
> I am citing from memory here and there were some nasty and
> inordinately unhelpfull error messages that I no longer recall for a
> few of those incidents. Those things date back to the times when I was
> using Windows and ActivePerl for learning Perl. Sometimes I still need
> to fire up Windows and ActivePerl again for testing things with my
> modules. With respect to ppm things haven't improved a lot and so I've
> stopped making ppm packages for my modules lest I have to deal with
> other people's ppm troubles.
As I already wrote, if ppm was that bad, it would have been fixed ages
ago. I use it very often, and haven't seen any of the above problems.
[ Cygwin ]
> I only used it for Perl. The last time I used it it had wrecked
> CPAN.pm for me. Apparently my username (default name given during
> cygwin installation) contained a space. So CPAN.pm dowloaded a
> distribution but was then not capable of finding it because a path
> such as
>
> /home/username with space/.cpan/build/Module-$VER.tar.gz
>
> was evidently too tricky to deal with.
LOL, neither ppm nor CPAN likes you ;-)
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
| |
|
|
| John Bokma 2005-09-26, 6:58 pm |
| "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid> wrote:
> "Tassilo v. Parseval" <tassilo.von.parseval@rwth-aachen.de> wrote in
[ ppm ]
>
> That still seems to be true.
upgrade -install works for me :-) The only exception seems to be PAR.
But even after installation it had problems which forced me to compile it
myself, so I blame this on PAR, not ppm.
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
| |
| Damian James 2005-09-26, 9:56 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:58:09 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval said:
> [cygwin]
> I only used it for Perl. The last time I used it it had wrecked CPAN.pm
> for me. Apparently my username (default name given during cygwin
> installation) contained a space. So CPAN.pm dowloaded a distribution but
> was then not capable of finding it because a path such as
>
> /home/username with space/.cpan/build/Module-$VER.tar.gz
>
> was evidently too tricky to deal with.
To be fair, it's very unclear whether that's cygwin's or CPAN.pm's fault.
Or whether it's some artefact of the manner in which CPAN.pm passes the path
to the environment.
I've used both (cygwin and ActiveState) for years, though. Initially, I got
cygwin just for Perl, because at that time the ActiveState version did not
do the various low-level emulations needed for fork() and select(3) to
work, while obviously cygwin provided these in the environment.
I've generally used ActiveState for stuff sitting on the network that users
need to have available, though at times I've used cygwin for that too,
juggling paths and dlls and so forth. Things that need GUIs under Windows
that users other than me will use, obviously I do with ActiveState perl,
otherwise is Just Too Hard. Of course, most of these end up growing into
web-based thingummies, and can therefore live on a real unix machine.
--Damian
|
|
|
|
|