>On Sun, 28 May 2000 20:59:53 -0400, Matthew Persico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
>>"Paul Rogers [CE]" wrote:
>>>
>>> Something I never dreamed would happen...
>>>
>>>
http://www.activestate.com/Corporate/Media_Center/News/Press959117519.html
<http://www.activestate.com/Corporate/Media_Center/News/Press959117519.html>
>>>
>>Does this mean we will FINALLY be able to drop all the PPM crap
and just
>>invoke the Visual Studio C compile where necessary on ANY CPAN
module?
>>Ah, the simplicity of
>>
>> perl Makefile.PL
>> make test
>> make install
>
>This has always been possible; you just have to spell it "nmake" instead of
"make", but you would already know this if you read the documentation.
>>and not having to WAIT for the PPM gods to get around to
'certifying'
>>every module.
>
>This isn't really 'certifying', but just adding them to the source
repository, integrating them into the build processes, checking on which
platforms they are operational, making sure the modules pass at least their
own test suites >and then building the PPD and PPM files.
>I actually find your attitude quite annoying. The packages on PPM
are provided as a *free* service for people who don't own a C compiler
and/or don't want to bother with building the modules themselves. If you
don't like the >service, just don't use it. You seem to own a copy of
Visual Studio, just compile everything yourself and you are all set.
* >Jan
Not mentioning that even when you do own a compiler, you rarely have it
installed on every machine on which you want/need to run Perl with modules.
The numerous calls for help about PPM in most Perl-Win32 mailing lists are a
tribute to its usefulness and practicality.
_____________________________________________
Bruno Bellenger
Sr. Network/Systems Administrator
---
You are currently subscribed to perl-win32-users as: [archive@jab.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For non-automated Mailing List support, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
