which doesn't look much like a ppd to me
When I click on that link I get:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
- <SOFTPKG NAME="Crypt-SSLeay" VERSION="0,53,0,0">
<TITLE>Crypt-SSLeay</TITLE>
<ABSTRACT>OpenSSL glue that provides LWP https support</ABSTRACT>
<AUTHOR>Joshua Chamas <josh (at) chamas dot com></AUTHOR>
- <IMPLEMENTATION>
<OS NAME="MSWin32" />
<ARCHITECTURE NAME="MSWin32-x86-multi-thread-5.8" />
<CODEBASE HREF="http://theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca/ppms/x86/Crypt-SSLeay.t
+ar.gz" />
<INSTALL EXEC="PPM_PERL" HREF="http://theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca/ppms/scr
+ipts/install_ssl">install_ssl</INSTALL>
<PROVIDE NAME="Crypt::SSLeay" VERSION="0.51" />
<PROVIDE NAME="Crypt::SSLeay::Conn" />
<PROVIDE NAME="Crypt::SSLeay::CTX" />
<PROVIDE NAME="Crypt::SSLeay::Err" />
<PROVIDE NAME="Crypt::SSLeay::MainContext" />
<PROVIDE NAME="Crypt::SSLeay::X509" />
<PROVIDE NAME="Net::SSL" VERSION="2.77" />
</IMPLEMENTATION>
</SOFTPKG>
Sometimes I've found that you have to "View Source" to see what's *really* there.
For example, when I go to the bribes ppd I get:
OpenSSL support for LWP David Landgren (david@landgren.net)
But when I "View Source" I see:
<SOFTPKG NAME="Crypt-SSLeay" VERSION="0,57,0,0">
<TITLE>Crypt-SSLeay</TITLE>
<ABSTRACT>OpenSSL support for LWP</ABSTRACT>
<AUTHOR>David Landgren (david@landgren.net)</AUTHOR>
<IMPLEMENTATION>
<OS NAME="MSWin32" />
<ARCHITECTURE NAME="MSWin32-x86-multi-thread" />
<CODEBASE HREF="Crypt-SSLeay-0.57-PPM56.tar.gz" />
</IMPLEMENTATION>
<IMPLEMENTATION>
<OS NAME="MSWin32" />
<ARCHITECTURE NAME="MSWin32-x86-multi-thread-5.8" />
<CODEBASE HREF="Crypt-SSLeay-0.57-PPM58.tar.gz" />
</IMPLEMENTATION>
<IMPLEMENTATION>
<OS NAME="MSWin32" />
<ARCHITECTURE NAME="MSWin32-x86-multi-thread-5.10" />
<CODEBASE HREF="Crypt-SSLeay-0.57-PPM510.tar.gz" />
</IMPLEMENTATION>
</SOFTPKG>
In both cases the ppd is valid.
Incidentally, I'm equally puzzled as to why you get that error you reported when you try to install the bribes ppm of Crypt-SSLeay. For me, ppm install http://www.bribes.org/perl/ppm/Crypt-SSLeay.ppd works fine on 5.10.
Cheers, Rob |