Re: Boxed Perl or ActiveState Perl?
From: GreenLight (google_at_milbaugh.com)
Date: 04/02/04
- Next message: Joe: "Re: Why dosn't this work?"
- Previous message: GreenLight: "Re: splitting string with unknown number of similar substrings"
- In reply to: Vittorio: "Boxed Perl or ActiveState Perl?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 2 Apr 2004 09:48:36 -0800
Vittorio <victor@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<3hSac.965$hc5.16660@news3.tin.it>...
> On my dual-boot (linux debian testing & windows xp) box under linux I
> have installed debian testing and the deb perl 5.6 packages boxed with
> the debian distribution.
>
> Now, using perl both under linux and win xp I've installed activestate
> perl 5.8 under M$ win and it looks great!
>
> The same activestate site offer a debianized perl-5.8 package which is
> installed under usr/local/bin.
>
> In the opinion of more experienced users than I am is there any
> advantage for me to install activestate perl instead of the standard deb
> packages?
>
With ActiveState on Win32, they have the ppm tool which simplifies
package installation (no need to compile modules locally):
ppm install File-Slurp
Maybe they have the same thing for Debian. That would be one benefit
to switching, IMHO.
> Can both versions of perl coexist?
>
> If I install activestate perl, could I eliminate the boxed debian perl
> packages (to avoid duplication, of course) or they're essential for the
> installation?
>
I don't know anything about Debian (I use *BSD), so I cannot help you
there.
-- my real address is perl - at - milbaugh - dot - com
- Next message: Joe: "Re: Why dosn't this work?"
- Previous message: GreenLight: "Re: splitting string with unknown number of similar substrings"
- In reply to: Vittorio: "Boxed Perl or ActiveState Perl?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
