Re^4: Build problems with Archive::Zip?

but will still recommend using cpan/cpanm for the module installs instead of doing it manually.

Why? What difference do you think it would have made for cpan or cpanm to have run the same commands I do, and failed in the same way?

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^4: Build problems with Archive::Zip?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Build problems with Archive::Zip? by fishmonger (Chaplain) on Jul 08, 2015 at 20:13 UTC
Are you sure it would have failed in the same way? It didn't for me. `c:\test>cpanm Archive::Zip --> Working on Archive::Zip Fetching http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/P/PH/PHRED/Archive-Zip-1.48.ta +r.gz ... OK Configuring Archive-Zip-1.48 ... OK Building and testing Archive-Zip-1.48 ... OK Successfully installed Archive-Zip-1.48 (upgraded from 1.45) 1 distribution installed` [download] As you can see, this turned out to be an upgrade. I installed v1.45 back in Dec 2014 via cpan without any errors. When doing it manually, there's more of a chance of user error. I'm not saying that was the case here. Using cpan/cpanm is is much easier in terms of the number of steps the user needs to take. I'm sure you know that we Perl programmers are lazy and like to do things with fewer keystrokes.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: Build problems with Archive::Zip? by Anonymous Monk on Jul 08, 2015 at 20:41 UTC
" I'm not saying that was the case here." Oh but WE are and WE are saying that BrowserUk doesn't want it known that he does not follow Best Practices. (:	[reply]