Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid

Re: Getting Fed Up with ActiveState

by rinceWind (Monsignor)
on Dec 01, 2006 at 12:00 UTC ( #587171=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Getting Fed Up with ActiveState


I'm a developer of some Windows Perl apps on ActivePerl at work, albeit 5.6.1. I've more or less given up on ActiveState's PPM repository, and don't even bother trying to use any PPMs from it. I gather there are other repositories with folks who are more receptive: Randy Kobes' bribes repository and crazyinsomniac's one, but I do my own module installs from CPAN, as I have MVC etc.

I'm also trying out Strawberry Perl at home on my laptop (the only home machine I use Windows on), with a large degree of success! CPAN works out of the box, including C compiles.


Oh Lord, won’t you burn me a Knoppix CD ?
My friends all rate Windows, I must disagree.
Your powers of persuasion will set them all free,
So oh Lord, won’t you burn me a Knoppix CD ?
(Missquoting Janis Joplin)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Getting Fed Up with ActiveState
by Ovid (Cardinal) on Dec 01, 2006 at 12:03 UTC

    The other PPM repositories definitely help, but I do wonder how many people know about them? The more obstacles in the way of getting things to work and the more people will shrug and just reach for the next solution.


    New address of my CGI Course.

      PPM Repositories on is an attempt to help. But I agree it's one more hurdle to productivity.


      Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.

        xdg linked to

        That page contains the following entry: (use this for ActivePerl 819 and greater)

        Which is somewhat misleading, I believe. Afaik, that repository provides ppm's for all versions of ActivePerl 5.8.x (and all versions of Strawberry Perl 5.8.x, too). That particular entry is surely inaccurate ? (Unless someone can convince me to do otherwise, I'll amend it tomorrow :-)