This is a simple hello world script ...

#!/usr/bin/perl

print "Hello World\n";

Anyway, I have a new problem now.

I compiled on Fedora Core 3... (What was originally
the test machine) and now the script runs on my Fedora
Core 2 box.

I am not able to run on RH 9.0 or RH 7.3... 7.3 is
complaining about GLIBC (understandbly) but I am
unable to install PAR on the server to compile there.

What are the minimal requirements for PAR?

Thanks,
Bechara
--- "Schupp Roderich (extern) Com MD PD SWP 2 CM MCH"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Hedgy,
> 
> > The outputs:
> > 
> > From the machine where I am compiling:
> > 
> >
>
/tmp/par-hedgehog/cache-307d931b3a731a80f6d2baa90238426bc903be73/inc
> > CODE(0x8422c54)
> >
>
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.3/i386-linux-thread-multi/5.8.3/i386-linux-thread-multi
> > [snip]
> 
> OK, this is the first problem:
> A pp generated executable should only have the first
> two elements in @INC
> (pointing into its per-user cache area and the CODE
> ref which
> knows how to extract modules from the zip archive
> that's part of the exe).
> In particular it should _not_ contain any
> directories from the
> Perl version wher it was generated.
> I've noticed some time ago that @INC gets sanitized
> in the
> Windows version of PAR, but not on Unix (at least on
> Solaris and
> Debian Linux, so this misbehaviour is not spcific to
> Hedgy's environment).
> 
> But what really puzzles me is that the two @INC's
> are different,
> I would have expected them to be identical. Are you
> sure
> that there are no environment variables, e.g.
> PERL5LIB,
> involved that muck with @INC?
> 
> Your problem seems to be caused by the executable
> loading
> stuff from the perl 5.8.3 environment which it
> shouldnt't, 
> but works on your build machine. But it doesn't work
> on the other machine which has perl 5.8.5. 
> But that points to possibly another problem: pp may
> have
> missed packing some needed stuff. 
> 
> Cheers, Roderich 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Reply via email to