On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:43:41AM -0700, DH wrote:
> Mattia Barbon <mb...@ds...> wrote:
> > > It doesn't hurt to visit the archives
> > >
> > > http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/8008/0/9809093/
> >
> > I agree, but nonetheless this should be fixed (I, personally,
> > would be very annoyed if a package installation would not
> > work [1]). [1] not that I use PPM that much, though...
> >
>
> true that. the PPM modules aren't bad, but the shell continues
> to suck, and it's hard to fix ~ i guess someone ought to write
> a better one (ppmplus anybody?)
Until ppm is improved a quick solution (which would really help
other people like me who use ppm) would be to include the script
> http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/8008/0/9809093/
as ppm-install-wxperl.pl in the distro. This way new users can
install wxPerl without scouring the list archives.
I downloaded wxPerl and when ppm failed I assumed the package was
broken and gave up on it for several months. After I saw this
message I went back to the archives and found the install script.
The easier wxPerl is to install the more people will use it, and
the more people will contribute to it, which will help improve it
over time. The broken install could be hurting wxPerl's spread.
Asim
|
