FWIW, it seems likely that 5.8.0 will be in 10.3, though that isn't
certain. I have been told that it is what they would like to happen,
and barring any unforeseen problems we should see it.
Michael
--
Michael Maibaum
internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|http://mike.maibaum.org
voice: [h]
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Jeff Lowrey wrote:
At 10:12 AM +1100 2/26/03, John Horner wrote:
How do I find out if it's 10.1.3 or 10.1.5 from the command-line?
[toothgnip:~] jeff% osascript -e 'tell application Finder to
version' osascript -e 'tell application Finder to version' 10.2.1
I just did a
perl -e 'print $_\n for @INC'
in Terminal and both /Library/Perl and /Network/Library/Perl are listed
twice. Why?
Riccardo
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.riccardoperotti.com
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 04:13 PM, David Wheeler wrote:
Apple knows that some utilities are undocumented (and that some man
pages exist for utilities not actually included in the system).
They've made great strides getting it all consistent, but as you've
noticed, it's not quite
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 10:39 PM, Peter N Lewis wrote:
Another alternative, for something like CB is that you could have an
initial install you'd need to do for any CB app to run, and that would
be the big one, once that was done, everyone else could just have the
relatively small
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 07:01 PM, Daniel Stillwaggon wrote:
What about a system where perl modules and versions could be
registered in an easily parsable format like:
perl-install /usr/local
DBI::AnyData 1.0
etc, etc
The idea is that this *file* (stars indicate tentative) could
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 05:41 PM, Joe Davison wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Jeff Lowrey wrote:
At 10:12 AM +1100 2/26/03, John Horner wrote:
How do I find out if it's 10.1.3 or 10.1.5 from the command-line?
[toothgnip:~] jeff% osascript -e 'tell application Finder to
version'
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 10:22 AM, Riccardo Perotti wrote:
I just did a
perl -e 'print $_\n for @INC'
in Terminal and both /Library/Perl and /Network/Library/Perl are
listed
twice. Why?
I dunno - it's just compiled that way. It certainly doesn't cause a
problem, though.
-Ken
Got me, Riccardo. I got doubling doubling as well, two different ways:
~% perl -e 'print $_\n for @INC'
/sw/lib/perl5/5.6.1/darwin
/sw/lib/perl5/5.6.1
/Library/Perl/darwin
/Library/Perl
/Library/Perl
.
~% perl5.6.0 -e 'print $_\n for @INC'
/System/Library/Perl/darwin
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 01:04 AM, Rich Morin wrote:
At 12:13 AM -0800 2/28/03, Michael Maibaum wrote:
FWIW, it seems likely that 5.8.0 will be in 10.3, though that isn't
certain. I have been told that it is what they would like to happen,
and barring any unforeseen problems we should see
On Thursday, Feb 27, 2003, at 08:22 US/Pacific, Riccardo Perotti wrote:
I just did a
perl -e 'print $_\n for @INC'
in Terminal and both /Library/Perl and /Network/Library/Perl are
listed
twice. Why?
about the only reasonablish reason I can think of would
be that they did not do a 'version'
At 9:39 PM -0500 2/27/03, Sherm Pendley wrote:
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 08:01 PM, Daniel Stillwaggon wrote:
Any perl application could ship with all of the perls and modules
that it requires in its .pkg. Before installing, it would do a
quick query and find out which, if any, of
The option of using PAR to distribute perl apps on OS X came up on my
recent (slightly related) thread. I just installed it, and so far it
seems to work quite well and easily. The files it produces are
somewhat large, though:
% pp -e 'print Hello, world.\n'
% ./a.out
Hello, world.
% ls -l
The option of using PAR to distribute perl apps on OS X came up on my
recent (slightly related) thread. I just installed it, and so far it
seems to work quite well and easily. The files it produces are
somewhat large, though:
My real app (much larger than Hello, world) comes to about 1.9MB, and
At 03:59 PM 2/28/2003, Morbus Iff wrote:
The option of using PAR to distribute perl apps on OS X came up on my
recent (slightly related) thread. I just installed it, and so far it
seems to work quite well and easily. The files it produces are
somewhat large, though:
My real app (much larger
modules you already have, not to mention trying to automatically upgrade
your system perl 5.8. (Note: This behavior of CPAN's is why I had to
Get a new version of the CPAN module, and
you won't have the upgrade perl problem.
Note that these should only need to be installed on the development
I had to install:
PAR
Module::ScanDeps
File::Temp
Archive::Zip
Compress::Zlib
but not in that order. I used perl -MCPAN -e shell to download them all,
but did NOT take CPAN's word for what dependencies I was lacking. As far
as I can tell, CPAN on OS X always ends up thinking you need a bunch
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Nathan Torkington wrote:
A .pkg is specifically just a distribution of files to be installed
using the Installer program. You can add pre- and post- actions to a
package (which I should have done for Perl--update your .cshrc to add
/usr/local/perl5-8 to the path). The
Trying to install SOAP on OS X 10.2.4
Even when I try it using the Makefile.pl I get the same error.
Any suggestions?
Will summarize ...
Thanks
--
Ari Kahn
http://damon.ib3.gmu.edu/~kahn
### CPAN output ###
cpan shell -- CPAN exploration and modules installation (v1.63)
cpan install
Could someone help me with this please? I had sent this to the mod_perl list - where
it was suggested that I try here instead.
Who is responsible for putting dl_install_.al in place. The DynaLoader module is
installed.
Thanks,
Warren
Begin forwarded message:
Hello,
I'm trying to work
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 04:53 PM, Ari B Kahn wrote:
Trying to install SOAP on OS X 10.2.4
Even when I try it using the Makefile.pl I get the same error.
Any suggestions?
Will summarize ...
Thanks
--
Ari Kahn
http://damon.ib3.gmu.edu/~kahn
### CPAN output ###
snip
Oddly enough I was
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 07:49 AM, Barry Jaspan wrote:
I guess this leaves it unclear what to do when a user double-clicks on
a .pl script
No, I'd say that's crystal clear - open the file in BBEdit. ;-)
sherm--
Heisenberg may have slept here.
i take it installing 5.8 is a bad idea?
At 5:23 PM -0500 2/28/03, Gary Blackburn wrote:
snip
Oddly enough I was using SOAP::Lite just today on my 10.2.4 box... I
had installed it under a previous OS X version, however. (Plus, I'm
one of those stupid people who's installed 5.8 over my stock
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 06:05 PM, stephen rouse wrote:
i take it installing 5.8 is a bad idea?
Installing it over your stock Perl is a bad idea. Installing it
somewhere safe - I prefer /opt - is perfectly harmless.
sherm--
C programmers never die - they're just cast into void.
On Friday, Feb 28, 2003, at 14:18 US/Pacific, Warren Pollans wrote:
[..]
I'm trying to work through recipe 9.16 in the cookbook - using
Apache::DB - although I'm not trying to use Apache::DB yet - just
trying to see how my stuff works when I start apache with httpd -X -f
path-to-configfile.
Yes indeedy - 5.6
Is it worth the 5.8?
on 2/28/03 5:23 PM, Gary Blackburn at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 04:53 PM, Ari B Kahn wrote:
Trying to install SOAP on OS X 10.2.4
Even when I try it using the Makefile.pl I get the same error.
Any suggestions?
Will
On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 12:55 AM, Peter N Lewis wrote:
I did find that various MUD clients would not work because they tried
to link to perl and got hit with the binary incompatibility issue.
There was an Apple installer script that failed if /usr/bin/perl was
5.8.0, as well - I forget
27 matches
Mail list logo
