X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
Subject:	Re: perl problem with cygwin path
Date:	Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:06:52 -0500
Lines:	30
Message-ID:	<ev3kss$rhd$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<461504C3 DOT 8090907 AT agilent DOT com> <02f901c7778d$8cd100b0$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <4615254D DOT 60608 AT agilent DOT com> <31b7d2790704051002l495585b3o8c999dd14f7b05e0 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <46153DB6 DOT 8060007 AT agilent DOT com> <ev3fd3$und$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <461551DC DOT 9020706 AT agilent DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070221 Thunderbird/1.5.0.10 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
In-Reply-To:	<461551DC.9020706@agilent.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Mike R Brown wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Mike R Brown wrote:
>>> Everything I have checked points to just one Perl installation.  So 
>>> maybe the question here is where did this version come from?
>>
>> That is indeed a good question, since the latest available 'perl' from 
>> kernel.org is 5.8.7-5. The full output of 'perly -v' (that's the 
>> questionable perl) may tell you something.
> 
> ----------------------
> This is perl, v5.8.7 built for cygwin-thread-multi-64int
> ---------------------
> This is perl, v5.8.8 built for cygwin-thread-multi-64int
> [snip]
> Looking closer I see there is a perl -V test that shows much more 
> information. I didn't check that out.

Sorry, I actually meant -V (that's capital, not little... I always use 
big-V and so didn't realize there even was a little-v that is different 
from big-V), although it's interesting that the "funky" one does indeed 
claim to be "built for cygwin...". When you are able to check the -V 
output, it would be interesting to compare what machine each was built 
on. If they are different that likely indicates either a change of 
packager or a rogue package. At the least it would mean that the build 
environment has changed, which may be part of the problem.

-- 
Matthew
<insert bad pun... on second thought, better not>


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -