Jacqui Caren wrote: >> I would advise against making a symbolic link for perl - I have done >> that, and perl couldn't find its modules. The symlink was from >> /usr/local/bin/perl to /usr/bin/perl, so perl looked in /usr/local/lib >> for modules, instead of /usr/lib. >> > > ??? > > Perl -V will tell you the paths(plural) that libraries are included from. > > If you want multiple perls installed you will need ot install them > yourself. > This appears to have inverted the original query (which was about referring to a single perl version from multiple places). > There are tricks to get a single perl to use differnet include paths > depending upon where it is installed but IMHo these are just plain > "shack-nasty" and a possible security risk if you mess up. > > I don't think this was required either - all that Tim was trying to do was to access the same libraries, but make the call to perl be different.
I've checked a number of more recent perl versions, and all seem to embed the library path in the executable, so *would* survive the symbolic link hack (maybe my problem was with older Perl versions). That said, I don't think that this is a good use of symbolic links - it only hides the actual program location. Much better, I think, to fix the call to the program. simon -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------
