2008/5/26 Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - Original Message - From: "Gabor Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> There's a small number of Win32::* modules that can be built *only* using
>>> a Microsoft Compiler. As it cur
On Wed, 28 May 2008, bob davis wrote:
>
> On a offtopic note(well for the list at least)
Would be on-topic for the perl-win32-users mailing list. :)
> perl -e "print chmod 0777 'test.txt'"
> on ntfs
> works under cygwin
> but fails under strawberry.
>
> Is this true of other win32 dists?
Yes.
On a offtopic note(well for the list at least)
perl -e "print chmod 0777 'test.txt'"
on ntfs
works under cygwin
but fails under strawberry.
Is this true of other win32 dists?
I dont have activestate loaded at the moment.
This isnt really important because I worked around the problem by using
W
- Original Message -
From: "KONOVALOV, Vadim (Vadim)** CTR **" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.
.
One of the wrong things with this approach is installer itself (MSI and
installshield crap), which is largerly broken on Win systems, and
there are many people (including me) avoiding it and p
- Original Message -
From: "Gabor Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sisyphus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: best win32 perl to use
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I
> >> For one, Strawberry gives you the compiler as part of the
> >> installation. You don't have to go find MinGW, figure out which
> >> packages you need, and so on. It's compiler-enabled right away.
> >
> > I consider this is a bad feature, that will help lazy
> programmer in a
> > short run
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a small number of Win32::* modules that can be built *only* using a
> Microsoft Compiler. As it currently stands, those modules can't be built on
> Strawberry Perl (unless some significant hacking were to be done).
Oth
From: "Gabor Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think there are other modules ... but hopefully I've already provided
enough to "get me off the hook", so to speak :-)
Oh, its not a question of proof but a question of trying to nag
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there are other modules ... but hopefully I've already provided
> enough to "get me off the hook", so to speak :-)
Oh, its not a question of proof but a question of trying to nag the
right people to resolve
the issues -
> From: David Golden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Mark Dootson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I must confess, I've not quite got my head around what
> makes Strawberry Perl
> > more 'UNIX like' so at the moment ActivePerl + MinGW (or a
> compiler of your
> > c
- Original Message -
From: "Gabor Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sisyphus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: best win32 perl to use
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: "KONOVALOV, Vadim (Vadim)** CTR **" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.
.
For one, Strawberry gives you the compiler as part of the
installation. You don't have to go find MinGW, figure out which
packages you need, and so on. It's compiler-enabled right away.
I conside
Hi Rob, hi list,
Sisyphus schrieb:
-- quote --
It is worth noting that the current release of Strawberry includes PPM
.
-- end quote --
I know nobody wants to hear this any more, but I can't resist. You can
install .ppm's with the PAR toolchain without resorting to the PPM from
CPAN (w
- Original Message -
From: "Sisyphus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.
.
About the first thing I do with a fresh Strawberry installation is install
the version of PPM that's available from CPAN - so that I've got a ready
made means of installing those "difficult" modules in a hurry.
I see I'm
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.
.
con: uses ppm and other non standard tools.
Don't underestimate the usefulness of ppm. It can be very handy for
installing difficult-to-build modules, or modules that require
difficult-to-build libraries.
About the
Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Cosimo Streppone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also use "unxutils".
Really useful.
`tar' doesn't handle gzipped archives, which is *annoying*.
But at least I can ls, rm, mv, wc, grep, find, ...
even if I use `ack' nowadays. :)
I think
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Cosimo Streppone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also use "unxutils".
> Really useful.
> `tar' doesn't handle gzipped archives, which is *annoying*.
> But at least I can ls, rm, mv, wc, grep, find, ...
> even if I use `ack' nowadays. :)
I think Strawberry comes wit
David Golden wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Bob Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am looking at gnuwin32 to get some of the unix commands. I cant live
without ls -l .
There's a sourceforge project called "unxutils" that has most of the
command line tools compiled natively for window
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Bob Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am looking at gnuwin32 to get some of the unix commands. I cant live
> without ls -l .
There's a sourceforge project called "unxutils" that has most of the
command line tools compiled natively for windows.
http://unxutils.s
David Golden wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Jan Dubois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
StrawberryPerl already bundles MinGW whereas you have to install it separately
in ActivePerl. Otherwise they work pretty much the same at the Perl level.
Once you install MinGW you can use the CPAN sh
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Jan Dubois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> StrawberryPerl already bundles MinGW whereas you have to install it separately
> in ActivePerl. Otherwise they work pretty much the same at the Perl level.
> Once you install MinGW you can use the CPAN shell with ActivePerl
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Bob Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any problems with having 2 perl's installed on one machine. Like
> cygwin and strawberry? Obviously I would have to change the path to put
> either strawberry or cygwin in the path. Is there deeper things like
> reqis
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Bob Davis wrote:
> Jan are you still working for activestate?
Yes.
> Is there any problems with having 2 perl's installed on one machine.
> Like cygwin and strawberry? Obviously I would have to change the path to
> put either strawberry or cygwin in the path. Is there deeper
Bob Davis wrote:
I am using cygwin currently.
It has the following problems:
1. Requires cygwin dll's(cygwin1.dll cygcrypt-0.dll cygperl5_8.dll) to
be predistributed to target machines
2. Can't embed icon or version in exe
I am thinking of switching to a native win32 perl to get around these
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Bob Davis wrote:
> For example when I go this page:
> http://bbbike.radzeit.de/~slaven/cpantestersmatrix.cgi?dist=PAR+0.977
>
> I only see mswin32 listed and it doesnt tell me what that means
> activatestate or strawberry or etc.
You'll have to look at the individual tester re
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Mark Dootson wrote:
> I must confess, I've not quite got my head around what makes
> Strawberry Perl more 'UNIX like' so at the moment ActivePerl + MinGW
> (or a compiler of your choice) seems more or less equivalent to
> Strawberry Perl to me.
StrawberryPerl already bundles M
David Golden wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Bob Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Strawberry perl.
pro: uses cpan and is more like rest of perls.
con: isn't listed on cpan as tested for various modules.
con: never used it before.
Not sure what you mean as "listed on c
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Mark Dootson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must confess, I've not quite got my head around what makes Strawberry Perl
> more 'UNIX like' so at the moment ActivePerl + MinGW (or a compiler of your
> choice) seems more or less equivalent to Strawberry Perl to me. I'
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Bob Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Strawberry perl.
> pro: uses cpan and is more like rest of perls.
> con: isn't listed on cpan as tested for various modules.
> con: never used it before.
Not sure what you mean as "listed on cpan as tested". For wha
Bob Davis wrote:
I assume that either of these perls fix my problems(limitations) with
cygwin.
Hi,
Of course, that depends what on the list of limitations you are experiencing. I
have noticed a few of your posts to list but I don't have a Cygwin environment
installed so can't help at all wi
I am using cygwin currently.
It has the following problems:
1. Requires cygwin dll's(cygwin1.dll cygcrypt-0.dll cygperl5_8.dll) to
be predistributed to target machines
2. Can't embed icon or version in exe
I am thinking of switching to a native win32 perl to get around these
problems. Choices
31 matches
Mail list logo
