You've clearly missed the notice on Intrepid's Home Node.
I don't see posts by Anonymous Monk beginning at 6:30pm on 7 Dec 2005, by using CSS to override display settings. The texts of postings of any nature by any non-existing (Anonymous) Monk are invisible for me.
Anonymous postings are Exception #2 to BrowserUK's Principle of Dispassionate Objectivism (“Examine what is said, not who speaks”).
I allow "root" to keep informing me that there are reply-postings by Anonymous Monk (because there is no way to selectively switch off such notices for the that pseudouser alone); but I can and will ignore his notices; and I can and will skip the postings by Anonymous Monk as they come up in discussions.
About that, people have claimed that there are justifiable reasons for some persons to post anonymously to perlmonks. On generous reflection, I have found none of the reasons suggested sufficiently compelling to change my belief that overall, anonymous posting subtracts from the value of the site.
Why don't you tell us why you won't post as an identifiable individual, Anonymous Monk? Just explain it in plain honest words so we can get a picture.
Just for the curious: Exception #1 is implied by BrowserUK's other Principle: “... Questioning authority.” It is justified, and important, to look harder for the self-serving motivation lurking in the word of those in positions of authority. To scrutinize them with a probing gaze more intense than is used on those not operating under the mantle of authority.
Also, you are quite mistaken in your response to my point. Not only is it mere contradiction (as contrasted with informed disagreement) but my point was missed entirely: that the configuration problems (experienced by the OP) demonstrate that it is not trivial to get perl Configured correctly.
Overall this group of postings makes a strong case for most Perl users to rely on vendor-provided package management teams and the work they do
What the vendors do is save you precious compilation time
...which is hilariously atavistic in the light of the sun that rose today and will rise tomorrow. On what patch of earth is a user so constrained by her hardware that compilation time is "precious?" Most of our systems are so vastly over-powered and competent now that we could have them do compilation as a background task 24 hours a day and hardly make a dent in our ordinary system activities like watching a YouTube or listening to music.
You also wrote:
but when they don't provide binaries of a library, you have to compile it yourself
If my words are misintepreted as saying anything contrary to that, then it is just that: a misinterpretation. Modules are another matter entirely. If the core perl installation is installed properly from the starting point of having been correctly Configured and built, installing modules ("binaries of a library" - huh?) is generally painlessly easy.
BrowserUK has gifted us with another gem of Wisdom that goes like this: “In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.”. I see only opinions (and not very clearly expressed ones, at that) in your posts. There is no evidance that your statements represent efficacious (workable) or correct (perl-savvy, insightful, well-informed) knowledge. There's no evidence seen that your advice allowed the OP in this instance to solve his problems. In particular, this statement is "indistinguishable from prejudice":
The problem in each case is simple %ENV $path management
Rebuttal: In no way does manipulation of the $PATH cover all problems of perl configuration, and it definitely has nothing to do with any of the entries mentioned in this parent discussion (that pertain to where system headers and libraries can be found) that are written in Config.pm. There's my "opinion" without "evidence" (except that people who know the insides of what is under discussion know that this is correct without having to be shown, just as they know you are incorrect).
Hope you enjoyed the moment in the light of my gaze, Anonymous Monk. The moment will not recur.