On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:53:22 -0700, "$Bill Luebkert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jan Dubois wrote: > >> The registry entries aren't really used anymore. It seems like you >> renamed your Perl directory. That is a bad idea: various paths inside >> both Perl\lib\Config.pm as well as PPM configuration information must be >> updated to keep Perl and PPM working correctly. > >This restriction should be avoided if possible. Moving a tree should >be allowed and have no effect on functionality. Can't relative paths >be used to avoid the problem ? Potentially, but it would need a bit of work. The Config.pm module *must* return absolute paths because many modules rely on that. But Config.pm can probably be rewritten to convert relative paths to absolute paths on the fly. Note that Windows is already half of the way there, as the lib and site/lib tree locations are determined dynamically at runtime, relative to the location of the perl56.dll or perl58.dll. On Unix, the location of the library directories is compiled into the executable. On Unix, reloc_perl doesn't just modify Config.pm and the ppm information but also patches the Perl binaries. There has been strong resistance in the Perl community to use dynamic paths for this on Unix due to security concerns. And I have no idea how much work PPM would need to work with relative paths in the configuration files. I think it would be a good idea to have this all work, but it will probably be easier to write a "safer" version of reloc_perl that can fix the installation after it has been mangled. Cheers, -Jan _______________________________________________ ActivePerl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
