GD.pm Makefile.PL broken?

monx663 has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Hi all
I have been using GD for a while now and I'm now trying to install GD-2.45 from CPAN.
I want it with GIF, PNG and JPEG support but that doesn't seem be getting installed by default.
I downloaded locally and after untarring tried: perl Makefile.PL -lib_png_path=/usr/lib/libpng.so -lib_jpeg_path=/usr/lib/libjpeg.so
these are the locations of the shared object files on my CentOS 5.5

but I get:
root@pluto GD-2.45# perl Makefile.PL -lib_png_path=/usr/lib/libpng.so -lib_jpeg_path=/usr/lib/libjpeg.so
Unknown option: lib_png_path
Unknown option: lib_jpeg_path
I also tried:
root@pluto GD-2.45# perl Makefile.PL -options "JPEG,PNG,GIF"
Unknown option: options
Is Makefile.PL broken or am I doing something wrong?
In the past,
perl Makefile.pl
make
make install
used to do the trick...
Now what?
Thanks for any replies

Comment on GD.pm Makefile.PL broken?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: GD.pm Makefile.PL broken? by marto (Cardinal) on Mar 02, 2011 at 15:44 UTC
From a glance at GD active bugs it looks as though a similar sounding bug has been reported and a patch provided (see also this udpate, as well as an older issue).	[reply]
Re^2: GD.pm Makefile.PL broken? by monx663 (Sexton) on Mar 02, 2011 at 16:17 UTC
marto, I applied the patch, fixed Makefile.PL and recompiled. Now works GREAT! Thanks a million!	[reply]
Re: GD.pm Makefile.PL broken? by Corion (Patriarch) on Mar 02, 2011 at 15:33 UTC
I would guess that Makefile.PL is correct. What have you done to inspect the cause? As a first suggestion, instead of `-lib_png_path` use `--lib_png_path` (note the doubled dash). Looking at the source of Makefile.PL would tell you that, and also looking at the output of Makefile.PL tells you that.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: GD.pm Makefile.PL broken? by monx663 (Sexton) on Mar 02, 2011 at 15:42 UTC
I tried the double dash before posting with no success. The Makefile.PL looks broken to me in some respects at least as it doesn't recognise any of the options it supposedly expects from GetOptions() ...	[reply]