On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> A fairly horribly restricted hosting environment *was* specified,
> though. Blosxom's the right choice for something like that.
>
Sorry, I thought the only restriction was no database, so I was
focusing more on the "...but would prefer someth
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:26:03PM +, Tomas Doran wrote:
>
> If one was to be a pedant, it could be argued that Angerwhale is
> likely to be more simple (in code directly comprising it) as it does
> less (most of the heavy lifting being done by CPAN).
>
> But I'm not a pedant, so I wou
Tomas Doran wrote:
> I guess it depends which axis of simple you were concerned about. With
> the pedant hat still on, I'd go on to argue that the definition of
> 'simple' wasn't well enough specified in the original post.
A fairly horribly restricted hosting environment *was* specified,
though. B
On 26 Feb 2009, at 21:35, Simon Cozens wrote:
breno wrote:
I've never used it, but Angerwhale *might* suit your needs:
http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Angerwhale
CPAN Deps tells me that Angerwhale requires 221 additional modules.
Bryar requires 45. Blosxom requires zero.
What was that word
breno wrote:
> I've never used it, but Angerwhale *might* suit your needs:
>
> http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Angerwhale
CPAN Deps tells me that Angerwhale requires 221 additional modules.
Bryar requires 45. Blosxom requires zero.
What was that word again? "*simple*", was it?
S
I've never used it, but Angerwhale *might* suit your needs:
http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Angerwhale
Cheers,
-b
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Bob Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
>> Dirk Koopman wrote:
>>>
>>> No MySQL/postgres or complex databases allowed, won't