Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2008
Hi, I'll try to be exact in what I want here. I'm compiling/installing/testing Perl on a biarch system (kernel PPC64, userland 32-bit). I already have a 32-bit Perl up and running on this system, but now I have to test 64-bit Perl (without uninstalling 32-bit Perl). What happens is that I'm trying to figure out how to install both 32- and 64-bit Perl in the system. I have already prepared a patch which fixes the way library files are installed (it appends a "64" suffix in every "lib" directory if you're using the "-Duse64bitall" modifier), and now I'm wondering how to rename some files that are placed in /usr/bin by "make install". The question is that if I run "make install", it overwrites every 32-bit Perl file by its correspondent 64-bit Perl file. So now you say: you can rename the Perl's executable file (using the PELRNAME modifier in "make install"). Well, that's right, but the thing is that also a lot of Perl scripts (e.g., a2p, corelist, perldoc, perlbug, etc.) are generated and installed in /usr/bin too, and I (still) can't rename them. My first question is probably simple: do I really need to rename everything before installing them? I mean, the Perl scripts will run exactly the same way when using 32- or 64-bit Perl, what makes me think that I only need to rename the Perl's executable file, right? My second question is: what do you guys think about changing a little bit the naming convention here? Why don't we call the executables "perl32" and "perl64" (for 32- and 64-bit Perl, respectively), and create a link pointing to one or another according to our needs? Regards, -- Sérgio Durigan Júnior Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM BrazilThread Next