Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2001
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 nick@ing-simmons.net wrote: > Prymmer/Kahn <pvhp@best.com> writes: > >On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > > >> > Given the odd nature of List/Util and given the ongoing discussion with > >> > >> Huh? Huh? Odd nature and what ongoing discussion about re-packaging? > > > >Odd: like re List?Util has a .pm component and an .xs component. > > All extensions with a .xs component also have a .pm component - even > if that only really does "bootstrap". Apologies for a quickly composed misleading reply. Yes they all have .pm's but the file layout is such that there is no .pm in the directory where the Makefile.PL resides and that throws off the current implementation of win32/FindExt::find_ext(). D:\perl>grep "List/Util" MANIFEST ext/List/Util/ChangeLog Util extension ext/List/Util/Makefile.PL Util extension ext/List/Util/README Util extension ext/List/Util/Util.xs Util extension ext/List/Util/lib/List/Util.pm List::Util ext/List/Util/lib/Scalar/Util.pm Scalar::Util BTW upon more careful experimentation I find that it appears that adding the scan for .xs files will help FindExt::find_ext() to find Cwd and List/Util as well as PerlIO/Via and XS/Typemap. There is hope yet for it. I guess it just remains how to deal with the bootstrap issue of how to get config.sh correctly built before building extensions then use it to build extensions. Graham's prior comments lead me to believe that the .xs portions of List::Util were optional. A scheme that was intended to assist the folks with no make utilities apparently. His comment is in the archive at: http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2001-04/msg01071.html Peter PrymmerThread Previous | Thread Next