[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Nandor) wrote:
>At 07:54 -0400 2001.04.09, Paul J. Schinder wrote:
>>Is this an HFS+ partition? I've been building foolsperl on my UFS
>>partition and haven't had any problems besides a few failed tests.
>>If you have a UFS or access to an NFS mount, you may want to try it
>>there. I don't know why HFS+ would be causing problems, since I know
>>they're careful to allow Perl to build on a case insensitive file
>>system.
Yeah, I'm trying to build on an HFS+ partition. It might be a while
before I could rearrange things to build on UFS.
>Well, there are filename length problems; does Mac OS X with HFS+ have the
>31-char limit?
I think I've traced the problem to the Makefile.SH script (when I run it
manually I still don't get a Makefile produced), and I don't think it's
trying to use long filenames.
>I would test it, but apparently Mac OS X won't boot for me because I have
>corrupted fonts on Mac OS 9. YES, I AM UPSET ABOUT IT. Ahem.
To help isolate the problem, you could probably install OS X onto a
partition that doesn't have OS 9 on it. Of course, the partition would
have to be within the first 8 GB of the disk.
>Regardless,
>is there any reason I should choose HFS+ over UFS, or vice versa? Is there
>a document somewhere that discusses this?
Yeah, the anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that HFS+ is much better
so far. I don't know of any official documents, though. The things
I've seen have been on macfixit, comp.sys.mac.system, and so on.
------------------- -------------------
Ken Williams Last Bastion of Euclidity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Math Forum
