Re: 1.35 -> 1.43: Overlooking Something Obvious ...

From: Bjarni R. Einarsson (
Date: Tue 18 Sep 2001 - 16:12:20 UTC

  • Next message: ڿ: "[ȫ] ̷ ߰-ڿ"

    On 2001-09-18, 11:40:13 (-0400), Jim Rosenberg wrote:
    > then I get the same results on the production machine as the
    > development machine. It looks like on the production machine I'm
    > picking up the *wrong version* of, which would explain
    > a lot.
    > Suggestion: maybe should include something like setenv
    > PERL5OPT -I../bin, and a message to be sure to install the modules in
    > ../bin into your Perl library??

    It does, but the path is appended to the include list, which means
    the system defaults come first. I'd say this is actually the correct
    behavior for the test cases, since you want them to fail if the
    installation is unlikely to work - which it is if you forget to
    update the stuff in the Perl library like you did.

    I don't currently recommend installing the Anomy stuff into the Perl
    library - until I've CPANified my code I think it's best to keep it
    self contained and use the ANOMY environment variable to set the
    library paths. This is the documented installation procedure, not
    following it is likely to cause trouble.

    I'll have to give this all some more thought.

    Which do people prefer - a self contained installation in a single
    directory (the way I do it today) or an installation which follows
    the file-system standards, installing the libraries into the Perl
    lib directory, the binaries into /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, etc.?

    Bjarni R. Einarsson                           PGP: 02764305, B7A3AB89                -><-    

    Check out my open-source email sanitizer:

    hosted by