Andy Dougherty wrote: > So what to do? Since you have apparently ignored this information the > first time I presented it, I will not waste my time repeating it, but we > built in both binary compatibility by default (so many folks don't have to > rebuild anything) and source compatibility by two different optional > routes. We did this about 16 months ago so CPAN authors might have time > to catch up and adjust. I really have no argument with any of this, but isn't it true that something changed at almost the last minute that forced the issue? My module compiled without changes as late as .670, possibly with RC1, but required na => PL_na attention by RC2. -NortonThread Previous | Thread Next