Re: Makefile.PL, ActiveState and MSVC5.0

2001-12-21 Thread Nick Ing-Simmons

Tye McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Excerpts from the mail message of Billy Patton:
) 
) I'm trying to get my XS, written and used on a SUN,
) to transport to my pc at home.  DOes anyone have
) an example Makefile.PL for winders98, MSVC5.0 and
) ActiveState perl 5.6*

The Makefile.PL should be completely independant of operating
system, compiler, etc.

Note that building Perl modules under Windows98 sucks because
command.com sucks (doesn't support  and ).  If you can
upgrade to WinNT, Win2K, WinXP, then you'll have better luck.

All true. 
Also if I recall correctly MSVC5.0 (without service packs) is 
a bit buggy - one must not use optimization. 


Alternately, you can try to find a replacement shell (sorry,
I don't have a recommendation) or work around the several
problems that you'll likely run into (usually by patching
things in ExtUtils).

Tye
-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons
http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/




Re: Makefile.PL, ActiveState and MSVC5.0

2001-12-20 Thread Tye McQueen

Excerpts from the mail message of Billy Patton:
) 
) I'm trying to get my XS, written and used on a SUN,
) to transport to my pc at home.  DOes anyone have
) an example Makefile.PL for winders98, MSVC5.0 and
) ActiveState perl 5.6*

The Makefile.PL should be completely independant of operating
system, compiler, etc.

Note that building Perl modules under Windows98 sucks because
command.com sucks (doesn't support  and ).  If you can
upgrade to WinNT, Win2K, WinXP, then you'll have better luck.

Alternately, you can try to find a replacement shell (sorry,
I don't have a recommendation) or work around the several
problems that you'll likely run into (usually by patching
things in ExtUtils).

Tye