On 2008-02-06 12:52:45 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> No-one complained that users have to modify their $PATH.
>> With $PERL5LIB, this is the same thing.
>
> We attempt to automatically modify users' $PATH with the installer.
In a similar way,
On Feb 6, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I don't see any kind of link with $PATH here.
No-one complained that users have to modify their $PATH.
With $PERL5LIB, this is the same thing.
We attempt to automatically modify users' $PATH with the installer.
--
Daniel J. Luke
+===
On 2008-02-06 18:29:21 +0100, N_Ox wrote:
> Le 6 févr. 08 à 18:12, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
>> The point is that the end user already needs to change his $PATH.
>> So, this wouldn't be a big difference.
>
> I don't see any kind of link with $PATH here.
No-one complained that users have to modify
Le 6 févr. 08 à 18:12, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
The point is that the end user already needs to change his $PATH.
So, this wouldn't be a big difference.
I don't see any kind of link with $PATH here.
--
Anthony Ramine, the "Ports tree cleaning Maestro".
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
__
On 2008-02-06 10:40:30 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008, at 9:01 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2008-02-05 10:13:03 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>>> svk requires newer versions of CORE modules than those that ship with
>>> perl5.8
>>
>> This is strange because I don't see dependencie
On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Matthew Ross wrote:
Why don't we leave the @INC in the order it is now so we don't break
current perl ports and use the APPLLIB_EXP option like FreeBSD does?
If we decide to change @INC this is probably the best way to do it.
Call it whatever you like...
If we m
On Feb 5, 2008, at 9:01 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2008-02-05 10:13:03 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
svk requires newer versions of CORE modules than those that ship with
perl5.8
This is strange because I don't see dependencies on particular
versions in svk.
Well, if the svk authors used '
Why don't we leave the @INC in the order it is now so we don't break
current perl ports and use the APPLLIB_EXP option like FreeBSD does?
The Perl INSTALL file explains it's use:
"There is one other way of adding paths to @INC at perl build time, and
that is by setting the APPLLIB_EXP C pre-pr
On Feb 6, 2008, at 4:49 AM, N_Ox wrote:
Le 5 févr. 08 à 16:13, Daniel J. Luke a écrit :
We really need to do one of a couple of things:
- Change the perl port to install a minimum perl along with
individual ports for each of the CORE modules
- Change the @INC ordering (thus making our perl ac
Le 5 févr. 08 à 16:13, Daniel J. Luke a écrit :
We really need to do one of a couple of things:
- Change the perl port to install a minimum perl along with
individual ports for each of the CORE modules
- Change the @INC ordering (thus making our perl act differently
from the upstream per
On 2008-02-05 10:13:03 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> svk requires newer versions of CORE modules than those that ship with
> perl5.8
This is strange because I don't see dependencies on particular
versions in svk.
> The perl community doesn't consider newer released versions of CORE
> modules
On Feb 5, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2008-02-05 09:35:38 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
The only reason why that dependency should be specified is if the
port
needs the newer version of that module than is provided by perl
core. If
the dependency really isn't needed, perhaps yo
On 2008-02-05 09:35:38 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> The only reason why that dependency should be specified is if the port
> needs the newer version of that module than is provided by perl core. If
> the dependency really isn't needed, perhaps you should open a ticket with
> the port maintain
On Feb 5, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Alternatively, you can write a dummy p5-getopt-long port. The module
is provided by the Perl core. Thus the dependency isn't needed.
The only reason why that dependency should be specified is if the port
needs the newer version of that module
On 2008-02-04 22:51:00 -0500, Michael Franz wrote:
> Ryan,
> Does that mean that I should expect the dependencies to have issues? Or,
> should I always pass in -f for my installs?
>
> I re-ran my install command (it was not apahe-ant, it was icedtea), 5 more
> packages gave me the same issue. I
On Feb 4, 2008, at 21:52, Michael Franz wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 10:47 PM, William Davis wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Michael Franz wrote:
I am installing an application that somewhere along the line it
has a dependency on both p5-getopt-long and perl5.8. I do not
know how these two re
William,
I just re-ran the command. It failed on the next 5 dependencies. Each
time, I just re-ran until I got past the perl problems.
Thanks
Michael
On Feb 4, 2008 10:47 PM, William Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Michael Franz wrote:
>
> I am installing an a
Ryan,
Does that mean that I should expect the dependencies to have issues? Or,
should I always pass in -f for my installs?
I re-ran my install command (it was not apahe-ant, it was icedtea), 5 more
packages gave me the same issue. I infer from your response, I should have
had the same error mess
On Feb 4, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Michael Franz wrote:
I am installing an application that somewhere along the line it has
a dependency on both p5-getopt-long and perl5.8. I do not know how
these two relate. All that I know at this point is that they
conflict. I see that there is a perl5.10.
On Feb 4, 2008, at 17:58, Michael Franz wrote:
I am installing an application that somewhere along the line it has
a dependency on both p5-getopt-long and perl5.8. I do not know how
these two relate. All that I know at this point is that they
conflict. I see that there is a perl5.10. I
I am installing an application that somewhere along the line it has a
dependency on both p5-getopt-long and perl5.8. I do not know how these two
relate. All that I know at this point is that they conflict. I see that
there is a perl5.10. Is this version to be used instead of perl5.8? If so,
how do
21 matches
Mail list logo
