in reply to Re^2: Can't locate loadable module error for XML::LibXSLT on Strawberry Perl
in thread Can't locate loadable module error for XML::LibXSLT on Strawberry Perl

My apologies: the correct procedure is "xslApplyStylesheetUser" and not "xslApplyStyleSheetUser" as I had put in my OP.
Nope, its xsltApplyStylesheetUser.

This thing pops up as an uncopyable dialog box. So, I had to type it. :-(
Try using "Event Viewer".

compared to the Win32 binaries libxslt.dll and libexslt.dll, that are being used.

The names have changed, but its the same problem. Your LibXSLT.xs.dll is loading some libxslt.dll which does not have xsltApplyStylesheetUser (its the wrong version, wrong library). You say you verified with "dependency walker", so it must be a path issue.

Your ciritisms are well intentioned and well taken, but we have definitely learnt from our previous mistakes and calibrated accordingly.
The typos say otherwise :)

  • Comment on Re^3: Can't locate loadable module error for XML::LibXSLT on Strawberry Perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Can't locate loadable module error for XML::LibXSLT on Strawberry Perl
by jey_suresh (Novice) on Jun 12, 2008 at 15:02 UTC
    Thanks for all of your comments. I do not want this to degenerate any more than it already has. So, let me stick to the essentials.

    The names have changed, but its the same problem. Your LibXSLT.xs.dll is loading some libxslt.dll which does not have xsltApplyStylesheetUser (its the wrong version, wrong library). You say you verified with "dependency walker", so it must be a path issue.

    As I mentioned in the OP, it is a clean install. There are _no_ other applications except the OS. A search on Windows for "*xslt*.dll" returns "libxslt.dll" and libexslt.dll -- both from C:\Strawberry\Perl\bin. I also mentioned that the error we get now is the "Can't locate the loadable module" error. If what you say is correct, I will still get the dialog box popping at me (which is not what is happening now). Perhaps, I am not following your point of view. Or perhaps you would be kind enough to elaborate a little more, or explain things differently.

    Thanks (no, honestly),
    Suresh.