luis.roca has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Their was recent news about Apple's Xcode upgrade breaking Perl XS modules:

I've known for a while that it's a good idea to develop using a separate install of Perl. Yet I've continued to use the system Perl because:

I basically have no decent excuse. Although I don't currently use Xcode and can just not perform the upgrade, this news has brought the Mac specific problems to my attention again. I noticed perlbrew was recommended in the post. I've also known about Activestate and had considered just using that.

Is it simply preference or are there any significant differences in how each perform, handle Perl installs and manage modules?


"...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
  • Comment on OSX Separate Install: PerlBrew or Activestate?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: OSX Seperate Install: PerlBrew or Activestate?
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 28, 2011 at 03:49 UTC
    Is it simply preference or are there any significant differences in how each perform, handle Perl installs and manage modules?

    There is no difference in those respects. ActiveState comes with the latest and greatest version of ppm and that is about it, the rest are modules on CPAN (like old version of ppm). Also, if you buy a license, you also get some kind of support... ActiveState does patch some core modules, but nothing too radical.

    Installing with cpan/cpanp/cpanm with either perl is the same, and like the documentation for perlbrew shows, you just modify your $PATH

[reply]
      ActivePerl includes a Perl::Critic GUI frontend (the screenshot is for the Windows version, but the GUI is included in the OS X and Linux releases of ActivePerl as well).

      ActivePerl also includes the Tkx module that is used to implement the PPM and Perl::Critic GUIs. However, it does not include wxPerl, you'll have to install it yourself from the wxperl PPM repo, or build it with the CPAN shell. But that is no different from what you have to do when you use perlbrew either.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
[reply]
Re: OSX Separate Install: PerlBrew or Activestate?
by anonymized user 468275 (Curate) on Apr 28, 2011 at 10:03 UTC
    The normal kind of reason is simply version management which seems too glib so, example: a corporate standard is say to deliver and maintain v5.6 (lowest common denominator or something) whereas a department or project needs a higher version which it has to maintain independently of the mainstream of rollout and support for the organisation.

    One world, one people

[reply]
Re: OSX Separate Install: PerlBrew or Activestate?
by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Apr 28, 2011 at 12:33 UTC

    I like to maintain separate environments when the stability and predictability of “one particular environment” is important for some reason.   I always do this with regard to CPAN modules, e.g. keeping a separate collection for every website on a shared server.   If the operating system in question uses Perl for its management toolchain (as many Linux distros do), I go ahead and install a local Perl executable as well, so that I can safely do “my” stuff while they do “theirs.”   (This local install may or may not be in /usr/local/bin, because I do not want to interfere with the vendor’s public code, but it will always be in the necessary $PATHs.)

    OS/X is a reasonably well-behaved Unix system if you are willing to step outside of Apple’s easy and well-padded room.   It plays by different rules in some respects but it does “play well with others.”   Especially if you are comfortable doing things without a ready-made installer, the procedure is unremarkable.

Back to Seekers of Perl Wisdom