Re: [Catalyst] Failing tests on Centos 4.4

2006-10-29 Thread Nigel Metheringham
On 28 Oct 2006, at 12:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, an RPM-only install of Catalyst would be nice. I'm not sure if you are saying that you are trying to build an RPM that installs Catalyst, but if you are and if you end up with something that's generic enough that others could use it

Re: [Catalyst] Failing tests on Centos 4.4

2006-10-29 Thread hkclark
On 10/29/06, Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28 Oct 2006, at 12:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, an RPM-only install of Catalyst would be nice. I'm not sure if you are saying that you are trying to build an RPM that installs Catalyst, but if you are and if you end up with

Re: [Catalyst] Re: template comparison (was: why not mason (was: something else unrelated))

2006-10-29 Thread Pedro Melo
Hi, On Oct 27, 2006, at 11:01 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: None of these engines provides a separate concise syntax to cover the 18% AND the power of a *real* language to cover the 2%. I wonder if using PHP as a template language for Catalyst would fly... Has anybody tested or use

Re: [Catalyst] Re: template comparison

2006-10-29 Thread Ash Berlin
Hermida, Leandro wrote: Hello, Its great to read how fundamentally different in their approach catalyst views are (TT, Mason, ClearSilver, TAL, etc.). I seem to be leaning on the side of Mason so far because I would like to stick with one powerful language (Perl), even though there is the

RE: [Catalyst] Re: template comparison

2006-10-29 Thread Jon Warbrick
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Hermida, Leandro wrote: I seem to be leaning on the side of Mason so far ... If considering Mason as a templating language for Catalyst, it's worth looking at Text::MicroMason (and Catalyst::View::MicroMason). _Almost_ the same syntax as HTML::Mason but fewer prerequisites

Re: [Catalyst] Re: template comparison

2006-10-29 Thread Joe Landman
Jon Warbrick wrote: On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Hermida, Leandro wrote: I seem to be leaning on the side of Mason so far ... If considering Mason as a templating language for Catalyst, it's worth looking at Text::MicroMason (and Catalyst::View::MicroMason). _Almost_ the same syntax as HTML::Mason

Re: [Catalyst] Re: template comparison

2006-10-29 Thread Matt S Trout
Adam Sjøgren wrote: On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:05:51 + (GMT), Jon wrote: If considering Mason as a templating language for Catalyst, it's worth looking at Text::MicroMason (and Catalyst::View::MicroMason). _Almost_ the same syntax as HTML::Mason but fewer prerequisites (in particular not

[Catalyst] Re: template comparison

2006-10-29 Thread Adam Sjøgren
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:08:11 +, Matt wrote: Adam Sjøgren wrote: How does HTML::Mason require mod_perl? It may now be fixed, but the way it worked out its dependencies had a tendency to result in it deciding to ask for mod_perl for no good reason if certain other things were missing.

Re: [Catalyst] Re: template comparison

2006-10-29 Thread Matt S Trout
Adam Sjøgren wrote: On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:08:11 +, Matt wrote: Adam Sjøgren wrote: How does HTML::Mason require mod_perl? It may now be fixed, but the way it worked out its dependencies had a tendency to result in it deciding to ask for mod_perl for no good reason if certain other

Re: [Catalyst] Testers Wanted: Cache::FastMmap 1.15 (w/Win32 Support)

2006-10-29 Thread Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior
On 10/29/06, Ash Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you could all run it through its paces on both Win and *nix and let me know if there are any problems that would be great. Unfortunately, it doesn't compile under Win32 with AS Perl 5.8.8 (build 817) using MSVC. Compile log follows:

Re: [Catalyst] Testers Wanted: Cache::FastMmap 1.15 (w/Win32 Support)

2006-10-29 Thread Ash Berlin
Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior wrote: On 10/29/06, Ash Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you could all run it through its paces on both Win and *nix and let me know if there are any problems that would be great. Unfortunately, it doesn't compile under Win32 with AS Perl 5.8.8 (build 817)

Re: [Catalyst] Testers Wanted: Cache::FastMmap 1.15 (w/Win32 Support)

2006-10-29 Thread Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior
On 10/29/06, Ash Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My bad - it didn't take the updated MANIFEST file (somewhere I messed up clearly) so it didn't include all the right files. Please try again, same url as before. That previous problem was fixed. Unfortunately, a linking error popped up. Here's

Re: [Catalyst] Testers Wanted: Cache::FastMmap 1.15 (w/Win32 Support)

2006-10-29 Thread Ash Berlin
Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior wrote: ..\blib\arch\auto\Cache\FastMmap\CImpl\CImpl.exp mmap_cache.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _vsnprintf referenced in function __mmc_set_error ..\blib\arch\auto\Cache\FastMmap\CImpl\CImpl.dll : fatal error LNK1120: 1 unreso lved

[Catalyst] packaging and porting Catalyst

2006-10-29 Thread Jonathan Rockway
Hello developers (and users), As you may be aware, Catalyst can be difficult to install at times. CPAN installations are tricky, and require the availability of a C compiler (not something that web developers expect to need). So, I'd like to start an organized group of people willing to

Re: [Catalyst] Testers Wanted: Cache::FastMmap 1.15 (w/Win32 Support)

2006-10-29 Thread Ash Berlin
Ash Berlin wrote: Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior wrote: ..\blib\arch\auto\Cache\FastMmap\CImpl\CImpl.exp mmap_cache.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _vsnprintf referenced in function __mmc_set_error ..\blib\arch\auto\Cache\FastMmap\CImpl\CImpl.dll : fatal error LNK1120: 1

[Catalyst] Fwd: [Catalyst-dev] packaging and porting Catalyst

2006-10-29 Thread hkclark
Forgot to CC the catalyst@lists.rawmode.org (vs the dev list) on my prior note. In short, if anyone is interested in helping with rpms for CentOS / RedHat Enterprise, please let us know. Thanks, Kennedy -- Forwarded message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Oct

Re: [Catalyst] Testers Wanted: Cache::FastMmap 1.15 (w/Win32 Support)

2006-10-29 Thread Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior
On 10/29/06, Ash Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm okay. Could you try editing Win32.c and including varargs.h and changing line 467 to one of the following: No need to include varargs.h. Chaning line 467 from: vsnprintf(errbuf, 1023, error_string, ap); to _vsnprintf(errbuf, 1023,