Re: [Catalyst] PPM vs CPAN in a Windows Context
On 6/30/06, Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that's the point - that AS has switched to gcc and it's *generally* > preferable to use the same compiler as your perl binary was built with. There's nothing in the release notes indicating that they've done this (they've recently switched to GCC on other platforms but not a single mention of Windows). What they did was to start supporting GCC under Windows. -Nilson Santos F. Jr. ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] PPM vs CPAN in a Windows Context
Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior wrote: > On 6/30/06, Christopher H. Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Don't do that. Bad things will happen. Always compiled your modules with >> the same compiler used for the perl install itself on Windows. To that >> point, you could compile perl in .NET, then do the modules that way too. > > FUD. > > VS.NET 2003 compiles everything that's compilable successfully for AS Perl. > That's what I've been using for at least two years without any problems. > > As GCC also does compile everything successfully for AS Perl. In fact, > I don't even know if AS Perl is still compiled using the VC6. I think that's the point - that AS has switched to gcc and it's *generally* preferable to use the same compiler as your perl binary was built with. But I'm still on 5.8.7 until they get a 5.8.8 that doesn't randomly spew warnings everywhere. -- Matt S Trout Offering custom development, consultancy and support Technical Directorcontracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact Shadowcat Systems Ltd. mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information + Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ + ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] PPM vs CPAN in a Windows Context
On 6/30/06, Christopher H. Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't do that. Bad things will happen. Always compiled your modules with > the same compiler used for the perl install itself on Windows. To that > point, you could compile perl in .NET, then do the modules that way too. FUD. VS.NET 2003 compiles everything that's compilable successfully for AS Perl. That's what I've been using for at least two years without any problems. As GCC also does compile everything successfully for AS Perl. In fact, I don't even know if AS Perl is still compiled using the VC6. -Nilson Santos F. Jr. ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] PPM vs CPAN in a Windows Context
Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior wrote: > The problem is that I never managed to get Apache to run mod_perl > properly without crashing. But maybe that's just me, since I've seen > other people reporting the opposite. But it works fine enough for my > current purposes under Apache::Registry. We've definitely got live users there since one of them reported a bug (long-since-fixed) with DBIx::Class wrt. thread-safety :) -- Matt S Trout Offering custom development, consultancy and support Technical Directorcontracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact Shadowcat Systems Ltd. mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information + Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ + ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] PPM vs CPAN in a Windows Context
Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior wrote: > On 6/30/06, Hugh Lampert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The hassle is that we are a Windows shop and my boss only cares about >> results. To roll out an .ASP application is only a matter of using the >> resources that are already installed in the development environment and >> on the production server (IIS, SQL Server 2000, etc.), so I'm already on >> thin ice with Apache and perl - although I've argued I can code more >> efficiently in perl than in the .NET environment. If I have to >> radically alter the production server beyond Perl and Apache/mod_perl >> then the limb I am going out on will bend substantially more. > > If you've already got a .NET environment then why don't you use for > compiling Perl modules? It's a much better choice than GCC when under > Windows since VS is the default compiler for AS Perl. GCC is used as a > fallback method since buying VS just for the C compiler is a little > overkill. Don't do that. Bad things will happen. Always compiled your modules with the same compiler used for the perl install itself on Windows. To that point, you could compile perl in .NET, then do the modules that way too. -=Chris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] PPM vs CPAN in a Windows Context
On 6/30/06, Hugh Lampert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The hassle is that we are a Windows shop and my boss only cares about > results. To roll out an .ASP application is only a matter of using the > resources that are already installed in the development environment and > on the production server (IIS, SQL Server 2000, etc.), so I'm already on > thin ice with Apache and perl - although I've argued I can code more > efficiently in perl than in the .NET environment. If I have to > radically alter the production server beyond Perl and Apache/mod_perl > then the limb I am going out on will bend substantially more. If you've already got a .NET environment then why don't you use for compiling Perl modules? It's a much better choice than GCC when under Windows since VS is the default compiler for AS Perl. GCC is used as a fallback method since buying VS just for the C compiler is a little overkill. > LOL. That doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy. I was counting on rolling > it out on Windows. What's the problem with mod_perl on Windows? The problem is that I never managed to get Apache to run mod_perl properly without crashing. But maybe that's just me, since I've seen other people reporting the opposite. But it works fine enough for my current purposes under Apache::Registry. -Nilson Santos F. Jr. ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] PPM vs CPAN in a Windows Context
Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior wrote: >> OK, don't mean to sound like a whiner here, and I haven't spent any time >> investigating the various GCC packages, but it's making me laugh that >> it's been suggested I download a C++ development package just so I can >> get my perl modules to install. > > Although I'm primarily a Windows user, I can't really deny that the > only one to blame in this situation is Windows itself for not having a > way to easily build stuff yourself. *Every* other OS has this sort of > things. Even those Linux distros that are completely targetted at the > end user (such as Ubuntu) and don't come with a bundled compiler can > have it easily installed with a mere "apt-get install gcc". > > I find it rather weird that the suggestion of downloading a C/C++ > development package in order to compile C/C++ code makes you laugh. > It's like saying that downloading Perl in order to run Perl > application makes you laugh. Clearly you've got a wicked sense of > humor. LOL. I'm not downloading a C/C++ development package to compile C/C++ code. If I had C/C++ code that I wrote that I wanted to compile, of course I would install a dev environment (in fact I would probably use the Visual Studio installed on my workstation). I'm downloading it to install the *perl* modules I need for my *web* app, and the perl module installation process wants to compile C/C++ modules, which it can not do without my installing this C/C++ compiler (not really an obvious dependency). I know if I wrote a C/C++ app, I wouldn't expect to be required to download a perl dev environment. >> I know... I'm supposed to do that all myself, and I guess I will, but >> for now I just don't have time. > > After downloading the setup file, it takes a double-click plus three > aditional clicks in order to get it installed. I really can't imagine > someone *this* busy. > It's not the download or installation time. It's the analysis of the possible unintended consequences. I have a number of applications I support in my development environment and I try to make as few radical changes as possible, so that everything continues to work. I know I can download and install PPM's because they all go into the perl dev tree. I'm willing to try the CPAN shell as well, however installing all new dev environments with the effects they might have outside of C:\perl is risky. If it's *only* 4 clicks that's fine - if it's 4 clicks and 2 days of environment debugging that's not fine. >> I mean I only want to finish my small app. My boss is going to split his >> gut when I tell him first I need to download a C++ dev package so I can >> install the application framework that actually is written in perl. > > Catalyst's written in Perl. Most of its dependencies also are. But > some of them have parts written in C/C++. How do you expect to compile > C/C++ code without a C/C++ compiler? I understand this. What I would *like* is for someone to compile it for me and make it available in a PPM. I also understand that that's not a given and the big boys all use CPAN. One of these days I'll be a big boy also (probably when I have time to do more development work on my Linux box at home), but until then I'll take all the predigested pap I can get! > I can't really figure what's the hassle about a 8MB download, some > mouse clicks and about 1 or 2 minutes of setup time. I can't really > figure out why your boss should even know or care about what you're > using to get your job done. > The hassle is that we are a Windows shop and my boss only cares about results. To roll out an .ASP application is only a matter of using the resources that are already installed in the development environment and on the production server (IIS, SQL Server 2000, etc.), so I'm already on thin ice with Apache and perl - although I've argued I can code more efficiently in perl than in the .NET environment. If I have to radically alter the production server beyond Perl and Apache/mod_perl then the limb I am going out on will bend substantially more. I do a lot of utility coding in Perl and when I was handed this assignment for a relatively simple web app I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to implement it in Catalyst, since I really don't like .NET. and don't know a thing about Ruby. While doing the initial problem analysis and design work I saw that (apparently) all the needed Catalyst modules were available as PPM's. If that was indeed the case, then rolling out this app would be as simple as installing ActiveState on the production server, using PPM to install the required modules on the production server, and installing and configuring Apache/mod_perl on the production server. I got permission to do that. Now hopefully PAR will work out, or the list of production dependencies will increase dramatically along with the corresponding risk increase in unintended consequences in the production environment. >> Lo
