Seems to me like there should be an installsitescript variable.
I agree that for user-built perl, it should be /usr/local/bin, not
/usr/bin. The last hints file I edited had this fixed, or so was the
intent. I think that was in a 5.7-dev version, though. Been a while.
I believe tha
On 2002.01.14, at 18:39, Ken Williams wrote:
> As far as I can tell (which isn't very far, since the Config.pm
> documentation is rather terse), /usr/bin is the correct value. I just
> checked a couple other perl installations (5.6.0 and 5.005_03, both on
> Linux) and they both have 'installsc
On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 07:01 PM, Dan Kogai wrote:
> On 2002.01.09, at 09:02, Wilfredo Sánchez wrote:
>> Perl built into the system uses /usr/bin as installbin. This is the
>> correct setting; the system perl does not belong in /usr/local/bin.
>> If LWP uses the wrong install path,
On 2002.01.09, at 09:02, Wilfredo Sánchez wrote:
> Perl built into the system uses /usr/bin as installbin. This is the
> correct setting; the system perl does not belong in /usr/local/bin. If
> LWP uses the wrong install path, there is nothing I can do about that,
> since I don't touch LWP.
On Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 02:04 AM, Dan Kogai wrote:
> When I say easy, it has to be as easy as
>
> ../Configure -des
> make test
> make install
>
> is it *that* easy?
It was last time I built Perl.
>>> installbindir and installscriptdir should've been /usr/local/bin, not
>>> /usr
On Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 04:04 AM, Dan Kogai wrote:
> on 02.1.8 6:12 PM, Ken Williams at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> * perl itself requires UFS to compile because of this
>>
>> No it doesn't - see the archives of this list for directions for
>> compiling on HFS+. It's pretty easy.
>
>
on 02.1.8 6:12 PM, Ken Williams at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> * perl itself requires UFS to compile because of this
>
> No it doesn't - see the archives of this list for directions for
> compiling on HFS+. It's pretty easy.
When I say easy, it has to be as easy as
../Configure -des
make tes
On Monday, January 7, 2002, at 01:12 PM, Dan Kogai wrote:
> Maybe. this case-preserving, yet case-insensitive nature of HFS(+)
> sometimes bites you when you are used to ffs and its variants
> (including UFS).
>
> * perl itself requires UFS to compile because of this
No it doesn't - see the a
On Tuesday, December 25, 2001, at 03:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The second part was changing every occurrence of
> 'parrot' to 'test_prog' in every Test.pm file
> that is part of the test suites. This is what I
> was missing. Now my Parrot 0.0.3 installation works.
Yow, that's not fun.
