On 8/16/2002 22:29, "Morbus Iff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perl 5.8, and all too many reports of mangling the system afterwards. Does
>> there exist an unambiguous set of instructions which I cna follow to upgrade
>> my existing Perl installation? If not, then what is the best way, and why is
> Shortly after 10.2 is released, the Apple Internet Developer [1] site will
> be releasing an article on installing Perl 5.8.0. I haven't tested the
> article on 10.1, but they do go into some of the common problems that
> people have mentioned on this list (as well as locations for installing
> Perl). For all intents and purposes, the instructions *should* run without
> modification on 10.1.
You they *will* be releasing an article on installing Perl 5.8, then you
said you haven't tested it on 10.1 yet, so that implies you have access to
the article. So where is it? Do you work for Apple? (Is that why you posted
that 'Note' at the end? ;-).
>> If given the requested instructions for installing Perl 5.8, would those
>> instructions need to be modified to make CPAN work properly? I would like
>> to keep all installed modules in one place, namely /Library/Perl, is there
>> any downside to that (considering this is a "home" system)?
> The 5.8 article walkthrus some basic CPAN steps, so yes, CPAN works fine
> under 5.8 without trickery. Perl 5.8.0, by default, installs all modules
> into /Library/Perl, leaving /System/Library/Perl untouched and ignored.
> There is an option to install into the current Apple structure though
> (-Dprefix=/usr).
Hey that's great, so can I just `sudo rm -rf /System/Library/Perl` or will
that chunk up my system somehow?
>> On a personal note: I'm really quite dissapointed with Apple's attitude
>> towards *UNIX administrators, developers, open-source junkies, and just
>> "power-users" in general. If they want to provide nifty, new-tech doohikies
>> and innovation and/or simple Apple mind-share along with BSD/Darwin, they
>> don't have to munge up the existing, simple, useful way of doing things with
>> it. Specifically I'm referring to such things as the directory layout
>> (where stuff goes), HFS+ case-insensitivity, etc.
>> *Sigh*... is Yellow Dog any good?
> OS X has to cater to two hugely different crowds - the "been with the Mac
> since 6.0 and I've been cackling at DOS the whole time" and the "been a
> Linux user since before 300 baud". Linux is largely "DOS" to the Mac crowd.
> As you know, a default install of OS X hides "DOS" - none of the BSD
> directories are shown.
"DOS"?! Ugh... is that really what they call it instead of a CLI?
> Taking Apache as an example - typical Apache home directories are
> /home/httpd/, /usr/local/httpd, /usr/local/apache, etc - all directories
> that are hidden to the "DOS" hating Mac user. There was probably a need to
> switch those directories to /Library/Webserver/, else the concept of
> "DocumentRoot" would be lost to a "DOS" hating Mac user ("What, you mean, I
> have to use DOS to find where my web files are stored?! Bwahahahahah!").
> Keeping DocumentRoot in the same place requires a whole new *world* of
> knowledge, and it's simply not knowledge that a GUI loving Mac user would
> ever give two turds about.
Well, if you have a GUI-loving CLI-hater, then why couldn't you kill two
birds with one stone by just mapping Apple's hyper-mneumonic directory
layout onto the standard BSD locations via soft links?
> IMO, Apple has done the best it can to splice the two worlds together -
> sure, the directories aren't the same for a CLI loving BSD user, but
> neither is the non-buggy GUI for the Gnome/KDE user <g>.
True dat, true day ~ but still, reference my above comment.
> (Note: these opinions are solely my own. Ugh.)
Yeah, so about that note? The 'Ugh' infers that you wish you didn't have to
write it, so do you work for Apple? Hey definitely better than working at
Rational =P ...hmmm...
(Note: these opinions are solely my own... doh!)
