On Thursday, August 15, 2002, at 03:53 PM, drieux wrote:
On Thursday, August 15, 2002, at 06:21 , Kee Hinckley wrote:
[..]
Of course this kind of solution is inherently dangerous given that
/usr/bin/perl and /usr/local/bin/perl may be different versions for
good reasons, and letting
On Thursday, August 15, 2002, at 07:03 , Kay Röpke wrote:
[..]
As 'developers' are a degenerated bunch of animals, they normally
keep their pack close to them.
What I mean is: their home directory.
a useful strategy, and a reasonable assertion about
developers in general... 8-)
[..]
You
On Thursday, August 15, 2002, at 07:53 AM, drieux wrote:
This approach also saves on the problem of using scripts that
were originally rigged with
#!/usr/bin/perl
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
Python programmers use this a lot, but it works equally well with Perl:
#!/usr/bin/env
On Thursday, August 15, 2002, at 11:53 PM, drieux wrote:
I can understand why 'developers' will want to have
'multiple instances of perl' floating around on
their machine - and one way would be to do this
with the split between the prefix /usr/local and /usr.
{ I would argue against such a
On Friday, August 16, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Rich Michaela wrote:
Actually this is not very reasonable at all, unless you have a
different
definition of production than I. The only sane way to run a production
environment is a single version.
Why? I've described a scenario where it's not
On Friday, August 16, 2002, at 10:35 AM, drieux wrote:
I guess a part of the problem I have here is that it
is not clear how the separation say
#!/usr/bin/perl is going to become 5.8
#!/usr/local/bin/perl is the older 5.6.1
that we get what you are suggesting
Right, I
