Wanted X, got Perl - operator error or prequisiste

[Randall R Schulz]

Matthew,

At 16:18 2003-05-09, Matthew O. Persico wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2003 22:32:46 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >Matthew,
> >
> >At 22:12 2003-05-08, Matthew O. Persico wrote:
> >>...
> >>
> >>>The *.pl scripts in XFree86 mean nothing --- they are not needed
> >>>for the normal operation of the X Server.
> >>
> >>Then I'll just whack 'em.
> >
> >Why? Why muck with files installed by a package you're using? Does
> >there mere presence cause a problem? If so, how and why? They'll just
> >come back when you update that package as the next release becomes
> >available.
>
>Because when I want to run Perl, I want ActiveState Perl 5.8.0 
>installed in C:opt\asperl and I don't want any chance of that not 
>happening.  This is the most mindless way of getting that to happen. 
>And after supporting three (yes THREE) versions of Perl on multiple 
>machines in different locations at work (not I didn't set it up, I 
>just inherited it and I'm working on fixing it ), the last thing I 
>need is to cause myself ANY problems at home.

This does not follow. Perl scripts installed along with one of the X 
packages aren't going to cause the wrong Perl to get executed. How could they?


></ridiculous rant> :-)
>
>Oh, and when I said "whack", I really meant "uninstall using setup.exe".

Setup.exe doesn't allow you to uninstall individual files within a 
package, nor should it.


>--
>Matthew O. Persico


I have ActiveState Perl and Cygwin Perl installed, and there's no 
conflict. The PATH variable resolves them just fine. When I run Perl 
scripts within Cygwin, the Cygwin Perl interpreter is used. When I run 
them outside Cygwin (say, as CGI scripts for Windows Apache), I get 
ActiveState Perl.

Software running on digital computers (that are not malfunctioning) is 
deterministic, after all.

Randall Schulz