strategy for tracking down old version of "use List::Utils"

Anonymous Monk has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Hi PerlMonks,

I need your assistance here. I'm trying to figure out which loaded module (in a large project) is including an old version of List::Util (v1.18) - i.e. the version that is included with core perl 5.8. I am trying the following:

From a breakpoint in my code, I'm running

use File::Grep qw(fgrep)
x fgrep { /list\:\:util/i } values %INC
[download]

I still haven't had success yet locating the specific module, but it does find the correct inclusions. The problem here is the chain of includes, so at the moment i'm only finding the top level. Is this the best/only way of doing this or maybe there are utilities that I'm unaware that can help me?

With so many perl module versions floating around, this seems like it might be a common task.

Thank you for your time.

Michael

Comment on strategy for tracking down old version of "use List::Utils" Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: strategy for tracking down old version of "use List::Utils" by CoVAX (Beadle) on Mar 03, 2015 at 23:56 UTC
Perhaps Module::ScanDeps may be suitable for your purpose? Searched for donut and crumpit. Found donate and stumbit instead.	[reply]
Re: strategy for tracking down old version of "use List::Utils" by Anonymous Monk on Mar 04, 2015 at 00:45 UTC
um, what difference does it make? Get rid of the old version, and be done with it :) Also, check @INC and Devel::Trace/Devel::TraceUse	[reply]
Re: strategy for tracking down old version of "use List::Utils" by Anonymous Monk on Mar 04, 2015 at 00:58 UTC
What about adding `print scalar caller` to the old List::Util.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: strategy for tracking down old version of "use List::Utils" by Anonymous Monk on Mar 04, 2015 at 01:10 UTC
or without `scalar`, for that matter	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: strategy for tracking down old version of "use List::Utils" by Anonymous Monk on Mar 04, 2015 at 01:17 UTC
Yes, works better without `scalar` :)	[reply] [d/l]