"Sisyphus" <[email protected]> wrote: > You shouldn't have to do any of that. If you want to use CPAN, 'cpan > -fi PDL' should have done the trick for you. Or you could avoid CPAN > altogether, 'cd' to the PDL build directory (ie the directory into > which the PDL source has been unpacked) and run the whole build and > install procedure manually - by running 'perl Makefile.PL', 'make > test' and 'make install' (and running 'make realclean' if you're at a > stage where you need to start over from scratch again.) Running 'make > install' (or 'sudo make install' if that's applicable) will always > overwrite any existing installation.
Yeah. But as of this morning I didn't know enough about CPAN to figure out that option. It seems obvious in hindsight. I don't use CPAN much and I had never had a CPAN module fail before, so I guess I didn't know how to deal with it. I hope I remember the '-fi' flag next time I have this problem. Much better than wiping out everything. > There are, no doubt, arguments in support of keeping it as an "all in > one" download - but I'll let soemeone else outline them (as I'm with > you on this). Oh, I do think that there should be a "one click" PDL distribution with everything on it. Earlier I even suggested statically compiling PDL and shipping it with Padre. This way, you can just give a CD to a colleague and they can just run the installer and get everything: Perl, PDL and the IDE. But i don't think that that is incompatible with modularizing PDL. And for geeks who decide to compile PDL from source, the process can be less likely to leave you without any PDL at all. Daniel. _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
