At 05:52 PM 8/6/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>I have posted a pointer to the newest kit and a symlink to my latest
>rendition of configure.com at:
>
> http://www.best.com/~pvhp/vms/cfgperl_6529/
>
>I have no idea yet which of the other patches to 6409 are or are not
>in the 6529 kit. I'll see about fitting Chuck Lane's stuff into
>6529 perhaps tomorrow.
Thanks so much for posting this. At first blush it looks like it has all
the File::Temp stuff (except for what I don't have working yet :-( ) and the
b.t patch, but not the cgi-function.t patch and only one of two hunks from
the descrip_mms.template patch. The descrip template in 6529 has
"[.lib]lib.pm" in the LIBPREREQ target instead of utils2 -- I'm not sure
which is better or if we need both.
>Oh I've also posted some ramblings about
>configure.com at:
>
> http://www.best.com/~pvhp/vms/configure_com_faq.html
Hardly a ramble. This really puts things in perspective for those of us who
didn't know the whole story, and should enlighten those folks on comp.os.vms
who loudly but naively complain that configuration is necessary at all. As
an erstwhile English professor, I've taken the liberty of attaching a patch
to the page with some typo fixes :-).
The only thing that tripped me up content-wise was where you describe
command verb set-up:
". . . the PERL DCL command verb (the latter
done with the PERL.CLD file that configure.com will write out if you are not
using a command verb to invoke perl"
Should the "not" be there? Won't the CLD file only get written if you *are*
using a command verb? Or did you want to say "not using a foreign command
symbol to invoke Perl"?
config_faq.patch
_______________________________________________
Craig A. Berry
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Literary critics usually know what they're
talking about. Even if they're wrong."
-- Perl creator Larry Wall
