Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Offline install of perl

by bart (Canon)
on Jan 07, 2017 at 06:57 UTC ( #1179115=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Offline install of perl

Rant: Something is very wrong with ExtUtils::MakeMaker, as it depends on a module that depends on itself in return. Now, you have a bootstrap problem to install them... IMHO this ought to have been a single distribution.

Anyway... On CentOS, you probably have to install a "devel" package in order to do some more non-plain-users stuff. Lo and behold, there is a packaged called perl-devel and it does contain both ExUtils::MakeMaker and ExtUtils::Installed. Problem solved, I suppose? (n.b. There are versions of this package for x86_64 and for i686. Use the one appropriate for your platform.)

Note that you can download the rpm files you need to install and use either rpm or yum to install them offline

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Offline install of perl
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 07, 2017 at 07:43 UTC
    There is not a bootstrap problem with makemaker, like corion says, you cant strip perl of its core modules and expect it to behave
      You're entitled to your own opinion, but I do disagree.

      Recently, I tried to install a module in a perl 5.12. This in turn required installation of Module::Build. That in turn required an update of ExtUtils::MakeMaker. And there was no way I could that upgrade installed. ExtUtils::MakeMaker depended on another module that also required to be updated, and that one in turn demanded a more recent version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker. There was no older version of either modules old enough available to upgrade both modules gently. So, I was simply stuck.

      Like I said, and I'll say it again: if your dependency graph is not a tree, but instead, contains a cycle, these modules in that cycle should not be in separate distributions. Otherwise your repository is plainly broken.

      p.s. Perl 5.12, to me, is modern enough. I cannot name a single significant difference between perl 5.12 and perl 5.24. Upgrading perl takes hours, because of the need to reinstall every module I ever installed. It's simply not worth it.

        You're entitled to your own opinion, but I do disagree. Recently, I tried to install a module in a perl 5.12. This in turn required installation of Module::Build. That in turn required an update of ExtUtils::MakeMaker. And there was no way I could that upgrade installed. ExtUtils::MakeMaker depended on another module that also required to be updated, and that one in turn demanded a more recent version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker. There was no older version of either modules old enough available to upgrade both modules gently. So, I was simply stuck. Like I said, and I'll say it again: if your dependency graph is not a tree, but instead, contains a cycle, these modules in that cycle should not be in separate distributions. Otherwise your repository is plainly broken. p.s. Perl 5.12, to me, is modern enough. I cannot name a single significant difference between perl 5.12 and perl 5.24. Upgrading perl takes hours, because of the need to reinstall every module I ever installed. It's simply not worth it.

        Hi,

        What module was it?

        I sympathize with you want new thing to work with really old thing seamlessly

        but this is not caused by the cycle dependency, which perl has had for the longest time ever

        its just all your stuff is really really old, 2010-Apr-12 was a very very long time ago

        ExtUtils-MakeMaker alone has had

        11 New Features
        6 Improvements
        18 Enhancements
        122 Bug Fixes
        33 Test Fixes
        31 Doc fixes
        8 Win32 fixes...
        

        since 2010-Apr-12 ... and Module::Build had ... and so it goes

        the cpan toolkit needs to be kept up to date , esp if the Makefile.PL is making use of new features

        What you're really complaining about is third party politics -- you depend on some rpm repository which isn't quite up to taking care of your needs -- it happens

        Kinda reminds me of this old thread :) Module::Build users -- please use the "traditional" create_makefile_pl option What's wrong with PREFIX, you ungrateful fucks.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1179115]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (6)
As of 2020-06-01 22:40 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you really want to know if there is extraterrestrial life?



    Results (11 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?