Perl error, once and for all

[Scott Haneda]

On Feb 28, 2009, at 9:35 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2009-02-26 04:28:46 -0800, Scott Haneda wrote:
>>> I think you have to modify the module to "use lib" and supply a  
>>> path.
>>
>> No need to do that. Just modify PERL5LIB in your environment once and
>> for all (you or MacPorts had to do the same for $PATH, $LIBRARY_PATH,
>> $C_INCLUDE_PATH or whatever, anyway). RTFM.
>
> This is the MacPorts Users list. Right?

Hey, that's a good point, while off topic, are the questions I am  
asking about port creation in general better suited to some other list?

> So just who are MacPorts Users? I know next to nothing about perl.  
> But I use it everyday because it's everywhere.
>
> I just want to install something that needs a perl and a p5 module.  
> Do I really need to RTFM for that?

You my friend, are hitting the nail right on the head from my  
perspective.  I do not at all mind this discussion from portfile devs,  
and port devs in general. You have to think about the kid who want to  
install wireshark, to learn about his network, or troubleshoot  
something.  Maybe a bad example, we all know what they want wireshark  
for :)

The goal should be, for 99% of MacPorts users, to not know what -d -v - 
f clean, distclean etc are for.  At least, that is largely my  
opinion.  Custom built apps like this, are by nature, mysterious and  
scary to most average users, a less than comforting install process is  
a turn off.

It would be nice to have Mac OS X native binary installers for  
everything, since that is not going to happen anytime soon, MacPorts  
is wonderful, but there are a few issues that need solving IMHO.

> If I want to install a something written in C of C++ should I just  
> RTFM?
>
> Now if your talking to port authors you may have a point but even  
> then I don't understand why the perl5 port wouldn't set necessary  
> env's up for me.

I would like to know that too. That can not be the solution to solving  
a 1+ year old trac issue, it has to be more complicated than that.

> Why do I have to -f an install to install a p5?

I am still trying to parse all this data to answer that myself.  If  
this is 90% man pages conflicting with other man pages, and 10% non  
man pages conflicting with other installed perl things...

Can I solve this on my own by updating the port file with patch, that  
instructs to to instal the offending file elsewhere? I am sure I would  
have to replace out some paths and such, but is that a workable  
solution?  Maybe that is the solution, patch the source files to put  
the files elsewhere.  I have no idea the repercussions of this.

>>> Does anyone know how CPAN solves this?
>>
>> CPAN lets the user choose where he wants to install things.
>
> And that is what I decided to do, just not use macports for modules  
> and use cpan much like I use php pear.
>
> And then I got totally confused by the cpan docs as to how to set up  
> the prefix.
>
> I hope there is a perl guru that can help us through this mess. Yes,  
> I think it's a mess.

This bear importance to me in the long run to have solved.  I am  
relying on MacPorts to help build out a entire package of things for  
users.  The slogan I want to slap on the website, more or less, will  
amount to "all this in one command", where "all this" is a combination  
of 20 or more things that a server admin may need.  I can meet the  
"all this" requirement, I can not meet the "one command" requirement,  
without putting a -f in there.

The end user will be ok with that, I am not, as I know there are  
dangers.  If this is really just a matter of getting a perl guru to  
guide us through the process, and a tcl person to patch it up, I am  
more than willing to start a fund, and donate to it, to entice those  
people to come around.  It matters to me, my ramp up speed to learn  
how to be that guru would be too long.  I can at least help in the  
ways I know how, which would be to get an enticing fund together to  
get the right people on the task.

> I'm no expert on anything but when someone like me doesn't  
> understand how to make this work without -f and friends I feel sorry  
> for the other 90%.


Agreed.  And we need to help that 90%.  I have seen many posts, where  
a port is not installing.  The reply from other users has been "you  
need to -f it, some ports are just that way", and that is not the  
right info, it will spiral out of control, to the point where as  
illustrated above, they blindly -f things.  -f is for when you know  
what you are doing, it should not be propagating as a solution.
--
Scott

* If you contact me off list replace talklists@ with scott@ *