Moin Offer Kaye (sorry, can't identify which part of your name which is the one you are called by :-)
On Sunday 05 February 2006 07:59, Offer Kaye wrote: > On 1/28/06, Tels wrote: > > Of course you must reliaze that, except for pure-perl modules and > > very controlled environments, binary distributions are doomed to > > fail. > > > > You simple cannot guess what libraries/compiler/system/kernel the > > user has installed, unless you know the distribution and version > > *and* require that the user never updates anything. > > This email, and the entire discussion that followed, was very Linux > centric. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for Windows this argument is a > non-issue, right? I mean, compile a module for Windows and it will > most likely work for all versions. Or at least the latest ones > (2000/XP). This is a common pitfall :) While Windows doesn't have as many "distribution" as linux has, there enough to make the "compile once, run everywhere" thing to fail in the long run (but as murphy says, you realize this only after having spent considerable time to make it work :D It will work for pure-perl modules (as least when the prereqs are meet), that is true. And I have successfully bundled these together with scripts and the "use lib" mantra and deploied them on various machines. But as soon as you need to compile something or need certain libs, DLLs, or window components, you step up in the wonderfull world of different compilers, linkers, run-time libs, service packs etc. I think with linux this is more in the mindset of the developers (you know that the systems differ wildly), while a lot windows people tend to ignore these things thinking "it doesn't apply to windows right?" and then you end up with non-working apps because the author had MS Access, service pack 2, the SDK and a compiler (and some unspecified updates that came with an MS Office update) installed, while the user machine has none of this. > Why not start off by providing ppm.cpan.org (as the OP suggested for > linux distors), or something similar? There are many modules that I > want to use where the PPM version provided by ActiveState or some > other repository is badly of out date. Are you talking about ppm for windows or linux? For linux: But what would be the point of distributing the binary versions when you can download the source and compile/link it yourself? (Yes, I see the point, but it would bloody much work for a few selected distributions.) For windows: Why not fix activestates build system first? Their solution seems to be "80% there" :) > I guess that many more people use Perl on Linux boxes, but there are > still uses for Perl on Windows... ;-) I pass the chance to make bad puns :) > It would be wonderful to be able to fully use CPAN on Windows, with > the same level of comfort that today's pre-packged PPM files already > provide. I thought that CPAN already works on windows? Best wishes, Tels -- Signed on Sun Feb 5 12:44:18 2006 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email. I'm a Sis-sis-sis-sis-sis-sis-sis-sinnahr...
pgpfRiXogmEY4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
