On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:10:29 +0100, "Martin J. Evans" <martin.ev...@easysoft.com> wrote:
> I noticed DBI was upgraded in subversion to the latest ppport.h (in > dbipport.h) and the recommendations that ppport.h has made. :) > dbipport.h seems to be ppport.h from Devel::PPPort. Correct > The DBI::DBD docs say to copy dbivport.h from the latest DBI > distribution to your DBD distribution - which I have done again - I am > happy with this and understand it. Good > I have implemented the recommendations that "perl ppport.h dbdimp.c" has > made in DBD::ODBC. \o/ > However, "perl ppport.h dbdimp.c" for DBD::ODBC suggests adding ppport.h > to DBD::ODBC's dbdimp.c and including it in the DBD::ODBC distribution. Remove that line. You need only one! > I cannot do that since I'll get dbipport.h and ppport.h and > redeclarations of macros. Correct. The recommendation is such, that to keep as close to the actual DBI, compiler with the ppport.h that was shipped with DBI. In theory it should not matter, but we want to be sure. Another reason to ship dbipport.h, is that it is likely to be more recent than the one shipped with perl itself. > I may be missing something but I don't understand why DBI includes > ppport.h as dbipport.h since it stops me including a newer version of > pport.h. I expected the way this would work is that when building DBI, > you'd get DBI's copy of ppport.h but when building a DBD::* you'd get > DBD::*'s copy of ppport.h. > > What to do? Use DBI's version, but using a *recent* version of Devel::PPPort is fine too. I intend to keep ppport.h in DBI `recent' as long as Tim permits me to > Martin Thanks for testing and checking -- H.Merijn Brand http://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/ using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.10.x, 5.11.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11, 11.23, and 11.31, OpenSuSE 10.3, 11.0, and 11.1, AIX 5.2 and 5.3. http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org/ http://qa.perl.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
