in reply to Re^2: Stop suggesting to upgrade perl
in thread Stop suggesting to upgrade perl

If you'd been here for a bit longer, and read, attentively, a few years worth of questions and answers, I think you'd find that posting a "Linux-only solution" rarely happens when OP specs Win32...

What's more, if such an OS-only solution does appear it's usually coupled with an explanation of the limits of its inter-OS applicability... and often, with one or more hints about how to modify it for another OS.

[Shoe-fitting time]: 1 Of course, some OP's write questions with insufficient information to provide useful replies and/or questions so broad as to constitute a request that someone (else!) do the review of the literature; the research and compilation of findings, if any and, when given replies suggesting methods for performing those actions, respond with abusive statements that respondent is maliciously withholding information or -- in the vernacular - 'doesn't have a clue.'

1. C.f. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_the_shoe_fits

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Stop suggesting to upgrade perl
by vsespb (Chaplain) on Sep 01, 2013 at 15:04 UTC
    If you'd been here for a bit longer, and read, attentively, a few years worth of questions and answers, I think you'd find that posting a "Linux-only solution" rarely happens when OP specs Win32...
    What's more, if such an OS-only solution does appear it's usually coupled with an explanation of the limits of its inter-OS applicability... and often, with one or more hints about how to modify it for another OS.
    That's actually what I would like to be true for questions with perl versions specified.
[reply]

        ...and I'd like a pony... and I'd like to have that fact mean I'll be getting one soon.

      But that ain't the way the real world works... nor is specifying a version always based on any real-world reality.

      Do you have any method for demonstrating 'truthfulness' in your statement (below) that you "can't ask them (users) to upgrade" from an obsolete version? If you're providing the programming expertise, you clearly have standing to -- at a minimum -- suggest they install a version that has overcome certain known bugs or added abilities. They don't have to delete 5.8 which, likely, is used for system functions; you'll find many threads here about how to ADD a current Perl version to a system without borking the system-Perl.

      BTW and FWIW, the fact that RH says it will support 5.8 until 2017 for RHEL5 does NOT mean RH will cure the bugs (nor the shortcomings) of 5.8 compared to 5.10, 5.12, etc.

      Sometime, it takes a 'clue by four' to get a mule to do the right thing.

[reply]
        Do you have any method for demonstrating 'truthfulness' in your statement (below) that you "can't ask them (users) to upgrade" from an obsolete version?
        See OP. Most of those who runs linux have outdated version of Python, Ruby and Perl. And they used to use Perl, Ruby and Python software without upgrading all their stuff.
        BTW and FWIW, the fact that RH says it will support 5.8 until 2017 for RHEL5 does NOT mean RH will cure the bugs
        Yes, only security fixes are guaranteed. And they sometimes backport bugfixes.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion