ActiveState Perl 5.8 805 issues

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

Hello monks... I've been testing the new perl release and I don't like it! I was wondering if anyone else had some concerns with it? The biggest downfall I think is how the ppm has changed.... being on a windoze system ppm 3.0 is a whole lot easier than the new 3.0.1 ppm. Some issues that changed were how modules are installed and how repository's are set. why do they change something that works??? I thought changes were made to flaws or what not, but why change the syntax of things?

Is there a way to suggest to go back to the way it was??

Title edit by tye

Comment on ActiveState Perl 5.8 805 issues

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: ActiveState Perl 5.8 805 issues by ibanix (Hermit) on Feb 28, 2003 at 01:46 UTC
The biggest downfall I think is how the ppm has changed This is the biggest downfall? Then kudos to ActiveState for doing a kickass job! When you consider the workload it takes to setup and maintain a distribution of Perl on a non-Unix platform, AND consider that ActiveState gives this away for no cost, I think many thanks are in order for the fine folks at ActiveState. Some issues that changed were how modules are installed and how repository's are set. I apoligize in advance, as I usually dislike saying this; however: RTFM? Is there a way to suggest to go back to the way it was?? Sure, you can send email to ActiveState on their contact page, or perhaps you want to bring up the topic on the ASPN Mailing Lists? Or maybe just become a member of the ActiveState Programmer Network? Of course, you've already read the release notes and change log for ActivePerl 5.8, right? Cheers, ibanix `$ echo '$0 & $0 &' > foo; chmod a+x foo; foo;`	[reply] [d/l]
Re: ActiveState Perl 5.8 805 issues by Marza (Vicar) on Feb 27, 2003 at 18:39 UTC
It is more of a retraining of what you know. PPM3 did annoy me but after I got it straightened out, I find it is not that bad. Now if all the mods were blessed for it! ;-) But that is what a compiler is for!	[reply]