http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1021838


in reply to Re^2: Funny fonts in ActivePerl under Linux
in thread Funny fonts in ActivePerl under Linux

1. marto said: "I'm not sure why you're telling them this."

Because the totality of the OP's "headaches" (and the one that's not a painful "szenario" -- the perfect rendering with the native (Mint) Perl) -- suggested to me that OP does NOT understand the merits and costs of packaging versus simply moving the script.

2. marto said: "Unlikley." (sic)

I think your surmise about a toolkit ( and moritz' earlier response ) are likely to home in on the real problem, but your "unlikley" is -- IMO -- off-target: its antecedant is not an unlikely bit of advice or worthless suggestion, but, rather, (part of) my bid to have OP clarify the problem-statement (see the last two paras).


If you didn't program your executable by toggling in binary, it wasn't really programming!

  • Comment on Re^3: Funny fonts in ActivePerl under Linux

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Funny fonts in ActivePerl under Linux
by marto (Cardinal) on Mar 05, 2013 at 20:20 UTC

    I said "OP made no claim to be compiling scripts, they explicitly state they create packaging an app. I'm not sure why you're telling them this." Your response to this is that they're confused about packaging? You clearly make a distinction between packaging and compiling. OP at no point mentions compiling, which is why I was confused as to why you were telling them they weren't compiling anything. PerlApp is a tool which costs money, chances are OP understands packaging and has good reason to do so.

    Unlikely (excuse my previous typo) is used aptly, IMHO, as the scenario you suggest is indeed a misunderstanding of OPs problem. As stated in my response, I encourage OP to clarify their issue. No offense intended.