Solaris taking over Perl ownership

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Andrew Hamm, Nov 5, 2004.

  1. Andrew Hamm

    Andrew Hamm Guest

    Hi folks

    I have recently built a Perl 5.8.5 binary for a new customer. I have made
    it install in /usr/bin, /usr/lib etc

    As many of you are probably aware, Solaris are supplying and obsolete
    version of Perl in /usr/bin/perl etc. As you are may also be aware, it is
    an old version - for Solaris 9 you are happily supplied 5.6.1, and for
    Solaris 8 you are supplied (I think) approx 5.005.

    Now the customer, who self-admittedly has very little UNIX experience, is
    saying that Solaris is making threats of withdrawn support if we install a
    "non-Sun" version of Perl in the same location; overriding the obsolete
    version of Perl supplied by Sun. They are threatening total withdrawal of
    support for Solaris, not just "support" of Perl [if the story is to be
    believed]

    I believe that the customer has talked to an undergraduate teenager on the
    helpdesk who is making unofficial policy on the fly. It's also possible
    that some member of the customer has invented this story to put up a
    roadblock because they want the project to fail.

    However, disregarding these latter two possibilities; if Solaris is indeed
    making threats of this nature, what would the Perl community think? Has
    anyone else heard such outrageous claims from Sun?

    I am trying to get hold of a written statement from Sun confirming this
    stance, and if I obtain it I will post it here.
     
    Andrew Hamm, Nov 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew Hamm

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Andrew Hamm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi folks
    >
    > I have recently built a Perl 5.8.5 binary for a new customer. I have made
    > it install in /usr/bin, /usr/lib etc
    >
    > As many of you are probably aware, Solaris are supplying and obsolete
    > version of Perl in /usr/bin/perl etc. As you are may also be aware, it is
    > an old version - for Solaris 9 you are happily supplied 5.6.1, and for
    > Solaris 8 you are supplied (I think) approx 5.005.
    >
    > Now the customer, who self-admittedly has very little UNIX experience, is
    > saying that Solaris is making threats of withdrawn support if we install a
    > "non-Sun" version of Perl in the same location; overriding the obsolete
    > version of Perl supplied by Sun. They are threatening total withdrawal of
    > support for Solaris, not just "support" of Perl [if the story is to be
    > believed]
    >


    You probably should take a look at the following:

    http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl/README.solaris

    If you take out their version of Perl, you can cause irreperable harm, so
    it's very likely that they won't support it. But as the docs say, just
    install the newer version somewhere else.

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Nov 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew Hamm

    Andrew Hamm Guest

    Matt Garrish wrote:
    >
    > You probably should take a look at the following:
    >
    > http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl/README.solaris
    >


    Excellent - thanks for pointing that out. Sadly I do not have access to a
    Solaris right now for a rebuild of Perl. I took an opportunity to make a
    STANDARD Perl with a few of our standard modules pre-installed and then
    grab a tarball. I am pissed at Solaris for trying to way-lay the
    /usr/bin/perl, but I see that

    So this is a solution. We supply many customers on many different
    platforms, and the need for a standard without obscurity is essential. If
    Solaris uses Perl internally, I would expect /they/ should take
    responsibility for protecting it with a non-standard install location.
    However, the symlink and explicit paths mentioned above does give a
    workable solution.

    It's ludicrous that an O/S can ham-string individuals who need an
    up-to-date version of Perl, or one with certain config options. HP at
    least has the grace to supply their ancient 4.036 in
    /usr/contrib/obsolete/rubbish or whatever that exact path is :)

    Changing #! lines is a pain in the proverbial when there are many sites.
    This is the first time I've heard of the O/S trying to impose rules, but
    at least there's a suitable workaround.

    > If you take out their version of Perl, you can cause irreperable
    > harm, so it's very likely that they won't support it. But as the docs
    > say, just install the newer version somewhere else.


    Yes. They put into /usr/perl5 when my builds go into /usr/bin and
    /usr/lib/perl* so I'm happy. Their precious /usr/perl5 is safe from me.

    Thanks again for the pointer. I can use this page of the document in the
    power-meeting I'm about to go through ;-) Worst case is to play
    chinese-whispers on a phone line to teach them the entire process of
    creating Perls - of course they don't allow any kind of dial-in or ssh
    access. Oh no. If this document can convince them of the safety of the
    install then I have saved a few hours of time that is not free anyway.
     
    Andrew Hamm, Nov 5, 2004
    #3
  4. On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:25:12 +1100, Andrew Hamm <> wrote:
    > I have recently built a Perl 5.8.5 binary for a new customer. I have made
    > it install in /usr/bin, /usr/lib etc
    >
    > As many of you are probably aware, Solaris are supplying and obsolete
    > version of Perl in /usr/bin/perl etc. As you are may also be aware, it is
    > an old version - for Solaris 9 you are happily supplied 5.6.1, and for
    > Solaris 8 you are supplied (I think) approx 5.005.
    >
    > Now the customer, who self-admittedly has very little UNIX experience, is
    > saying that Solaris is making threats of withdrawn support if we install a
    > "non-Sun" version of Perl in the same location; overriding the obsolete
    > version of Perl supplied by Sun. They are threatening total withdrawal of
    > support for Solaris, not just "support" of Perl [if the story is to be
    > believed]


    Not sure what Solaris version (uname -a says SunOS 5.9), but my old
    Solaris ISP has 2 versions of Perl currently installed. I have no idea if
    the second one is from Sun or simply compiled on Sun.

    % /usr/local/bin/perl -v

    This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris


    % /usr/bin/perl -v

    This is perl, v5.6.1 built for sun4-solaris-64int
    (with 48 registered patches, see perl -V for more detail)
     
    David Efflandt, Nov 5, 2004
    #4
  5. Andrew Hamm

    Andrew Hamm Guest

    David Efflandt wrote:
    >
    > Not sure what Solaris version (uname -a says SunOS 5.9), but my old
    > Solaris ISP has 2 versions of Perl currently installed. I have no
    > idea if the second one is from Sun or simply compiled on Sun.
    >
    > % /usr/local/bin/perl -v
    >
    > This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
    >
    > % /usr/bin/perl -v
    >
    > This is perl, v5.6.1 built for sun4-solaris-64int
    > (with 48 registered patches, see perl -V for more detail)


    My understanding is that Solaris 8 (aka SunOS 5.8) gets 5.005_03, and
    Solaris 9 (5.9) gets 5.6.1. From the document Matt suggested, they will
    only hang on to the old ones for 1 or 2 new versions of solaris.

    Anyway, I've had an amazing surprise - someone at the site has worked out
    how to download and build Perl. Customers can achieve this? If they have
    got it right then I'm happy as larry. All I'm waiting for is the output of
    perl -V to be sure they made the correct config choices; I want it to be
    all default except for one leeetle thing.

    Anyway, problem solved it seems, but I'll still hurl a boiled egg at the
    Sun offices next time I'm in the area.
     
    Andrew Hamm, Nov 5, 2004
    #5
  6. On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 14:03:41 +1100, "Andrew Hamm" <>
    wrote:

    >Changing #! lines is a pain in the proverbial when there are many sites.
    >This is the first time I've heard of the O/S trying to impose rules, but
    >at least there's a suitable workaround.


    Personally I've never had anything even remotely of vaguely to do with
    Solaris. But your claim as is not supported by evidence: everybody can
    come up with dozenths examples of osen imposing rules, and that is
    reasonable too. However, as of what I'm reading right now, what is
    even more reasonable IMHO is Solaris' policy you seem to be so
    astonished at.

    In fact if I understand correctly they're not taking away your freedom
    to install whatever version of Perl you may like, and to use that as
    your 'usr/bin/perl'-interpreter. They are only requiring you to avoid
    removing the version shipped with the OS, which is quite reasonable if
    that's an essential part of the OS iteself.

    Also, still if I understand correctly, you should not be urged to
    change any shebang line at all. But should you really need to do it,
    then it would be much less of a PITA with the help of Perl itself,
    wouldn't it?


    Michele
    --
    {$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
    (($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
    ..'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
    256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
     
    Michele Dondi, Nov 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Andrew Hamm wrote:

    > Hi folks
    >
    > I have recently built a Perl 5.8.5 binary for a new customer. I have made
    > it install in /usr/bin, /usr/lib etc
    >
    > As many of you are probably aware, Solaris are supplying and obsolete
    > version of Perl in /usr/bin/perl etc. As you are may also be aware, it is
    > an old version - for Solaris 9 you are happily supplied 5.6.1, and for
    > Solaris 8 you are supplied (I think) approx 5.005.
    >
    > Now the customer, who self-admittedly has very little UNIX experience, is
    > saying that Solaris is making threats of withdrawn support if we install a
    > "non-Sun" version of Perl in the same location; overriding the obsolete
    > version of Perl supplied by Sun. They are threatening total withdrawal of
    > support for Solaris, not just "support" of Perl [if the story is to be
    > believed]


    He is correct. Overwriting your OS-supplied copy of Perl is very bad
    practice; you can break the OS-supplied Perl scripts doing that.
    >
    > I believe that the customer has talked to an undergraduate teenager on the
    > helpdesk who is making unofficial policy on the fly. It's also possible
    > that some member of the customer has invented this story to put up a
    > roadblock because they want the project to fail.
    >
    > However, disregarding these latter two possibilities; if Solaris is indeed
    > making threats of this nature, what would the Perl community think? Has
    > anyone else heard such outrageous claims from Sun?
    >
    > I am trying to get hold of a written statement from Sun confirming this
    > stance, and if I obtain it I will post it here.


    There's nothing out of the ordinary or unreasonable about any of this. The
    answer, if you want an up-to-date Perl, is to install a second perl
    somewhere else, say /usr/local/lib/perl5. Solaris even makes this easy
    for you by putting its own perl in /usr/perl5. /usr/bin/perl is a link
    to /usr/perl5/bin/perl and all the system scipts go to the native location,
    so you can even link /usr/bin/perl to your perl and not break anything.

    --
    Christopher Mattern

    "Which one you figure tracked us?"
    "The ugly one, sir."
    "...Could you be more specific?"
     
    Chris Mattern, Nov 5, 2004
    #7
  8. Andrew Hamm

    Tintin Guest

    "Andrew Hamm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Anyway, I've had an amazing surprise - someone at the site has worked out
    > how to download and build Perl. Customers can achieve this? If they have
    > got it right then I'm happy as larry. All I'm waiting for is the output of
    > perl -V to be sure they made the correct config choices; I want it to be
    > all default except for one leeetle thing.


    Would installing the latest Perl Solaris package from
    http://sunfreeware.com/ be useful for you?
     
    Tintin, Nov 6, 2004
    #8
  9. Andrew Hamm

    krakle Guest

    Abigail <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > However, IIRC (I don't have a box I can check at the moment) on Solaris,
    > the "system" perl


    The what? perl? What's that? You mean Perl.

    > isn't /usr/bin/perl - instead, /usr/bin/perl is a link
    > to the "system" perl.


    perl? You mean Perl.

    > You're free to replace the /usr/bin/perl link with
    > something of your choice, as the Solaris tools will use the real path
    > to the "system" perl. As long as you keep that perl

    ^^^ ^^^

    Correct those 2 to Perl.

    > I think SUN did a better job of dealing with perl than many other OSses

    ^^^

    Perl.

    > Why is the opinion of the Perl community important related to this issue?


    And you finally learned :)

    I love the hypocritical Perl community whose corrections of others are
    their own mistakes... God bless us...
     
    krakle, Nov 6, 2004
    #9
  10. Pinocchio <> wrote:
    > Abigail <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >> However, IIRC (I don't have a box I can check at the moment) on Solaris,
    >> the "system" perl

    >
    > The what? perl? What's that? You mean Perl.



    No he didn't.


    >> isn't /usr/bin/perl - instead, /usr/bin/perl is a link
    >> to the "system" perl.

    >
    > perl? You mean Perl.



    No he didn't.


    >> You're free to replace the /usr/bin/perl link with
    >> something of your choice, as the Solaris tools will use the real path
    >> to the "system" perl. As long as you keep that perl

    > ^^^ ^^^
    >
    > Correct those 2 to Perl.



    No corrections are needed, since there are no mistakes there.


    >> I think SUN did a better job of dealing with perl than many other OSses

    > ^^^
    >
    > Perl.



    No, perl.


    >> Why is the opinion of the Perl community important related to this issue?

    >
    > And you finally learned :)



    No, finally he wanted to refer to the programming language while
    earlier he had been referring to the perl binary (the interpreter).


    > I love the hypocritical Perl community whose corrections of others are
    > their own mistakes... God bless us...



    And I love those anti-community posters who display their ignorance
    to thousands of people around the world while trying to sound
    authoritative.

    There is a FAQ about the difference between "perl" and "Perl" you know.


    --
    Tad McClellan SGML consulting
    Perl programming
    Fort Worth, Texas
     
    Tad McClellan, Nov 6, 2004
    #10
  11. Andrew Hamm

    krakle Guest

    "Tintin" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > "krakle" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Abigail <> wrote in message
    > > news:<>...
    > >> However, IIRC (I don't have a box I can check at the moment) on Solaris,
    > >> the "system" perl

    > >
    > > The what? perl? What's that? You mean Perl.
    > >
    > >> isn't /usr/bin/perl - instead, /usr/bin/perl is a link
    > >> to the "system" perl.

    > >
    > > perl? You mean Perl.

    >
    > No, he wrote 'perl' and really did mean 'perl', because it is 'perl'.
    >
    > You need to recheck the FAQ.
    >
    > perldoc -q difference
    >
    > >
    > >> You're free to replace the /usr/bin/perl link with
    > >> something of your choice, as the Solaris tools will use the real path
    > >> to the "system" perl. As long as you keep that perl

    > > ^^^ ^^^
    > >
    > > Correct those 2 to Perl.

    >
    > s/Correct those 2/It would be incorrect to change them/
    >
    > >
    > >> I think SUN did a better job of dealing with perl than many other OSses

    > > ^^^
    > >
    > > Perl.
    > >
    > >> Why is the opinion of the Perl community important related to this issue?

    > >
    > > And you finally learned :)

    >
    > And wouldn't it be nice if you checked the FAQ and learned the difference
    > yourself.
    >
    >
    > > I love the hypocritical Perl community whose corrections of others are
    > > their own mistakes... God bless us...

    >
    > Pot, kettle, black


    Perl language. Perl code. perl interputer.
     
    krakle, Nov 7, 2004
    #11
  12. Andrew Hamm

    krakle Guest

    Tad McClellan <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    > There is a FAQ about the difference between "perl" and "Perl" you know.


    Did you read them? I was correct.

    Perl language. Perl code. perl interputer.
     
    krakle, Nov 7, 2004
    #12
  13. krakle wrote:

    > Did you read them?


    Has Tad read the FAQ? You can't be serious.

    > Perl language. Perl code. perl interputer.


    Which is why you were wrong. Each and every instance of "perl" that you
    claimed should have been "Perl" was in fact correct, as it was referring
    to the *interpreter*, not the language.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
     
    Sherm Pendley, Nov 7, 2004
    #13
  14. krakle wrote:

    > Abigail <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>However, IIRC (I don't have a box I can check at the moment) on Solaris,
    >>the "system" perl

    >
    > The what? perl? What's that? You mean Perl.


    No, he means perl. He's referring to the interpreter, not the language.

    >>isn't /usr/bin/perl - instead, /usr/bin/perl is a link
    >>to the "system" perl.

    >
    > perl? You mean Perl.


    Nope. The interpreter again.

    >>You're free to replace the /usr/bin/perl link with
    >>something of your choice, as the Solaris tools will use the real path
    >>to the "system" perl. As long as you keep that perl

    >
    > ^^^ ^^^
    > Correct those 2 to Perl.


    Nope. The interpreter.

    >>I think SUN did a better job of dealing with perl than many other OSses

    >
    > ^^^
    > Perl.


    Nope. The interpreter.

    >>Why is the opinion of the Perl community important related to this issue?

    >
    > And you finally learned :)


    No, he's referring to the language and not the interpreter here.

    Krackle, get over yourself. Abigail has nothing to learn from you.
    Abigail knew the difference between Perl and perl when you were still
    riding the short bus to kindergarten.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
     
    Sherm Pendley, Nov 7, 2004
    #14
  15. (krakle) wrote in
    news::

    > Perl language. Perl code. perl interputer.


    Define iterputer please. I don't think I have ever used one. I don't know
    how I ever got by without one seeing as how vital it seems to Perl
    programming.


    --
    A. Sinan Unur
    d
    (remove '.invalid' and reverse each component for email address)
     
    A. Sinan Unur, Nov 7, 2004
    #15
  16. Sherm Pendley, Nov 7, 2004
    #16
  17. Andrew Hamm

    Peter Wyzl Guest

    "Sherm Pendley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > krakle wrote:
    >
    >> Did you read them?

    >
    > Has Tad read the FAQ? You can't be serious.
    >
    >> Perl language. Perl code. perl interputer.

    >
    > Which is why you were wrong. Each and every instance of "perl" that you
    > claimed should have been "Perl" was in fact correct, as it was referring
    > to the *interpreter*, not the language.


    The way I read the original quote this is referring to, the statement is
    ambiguous in it's intent, therefore this debate rages more over an ambiguity
    in the use of English than the difference between Perl and perl. Abigail
    could just have easily meant Perl as perl, and someone who is more familiar
    with Abigail would assume that theoretically correct capitalisation would
    have been used. Particularly because of the varying capitalisation
    throughout the article. However, English can be an imprecise language, and
    the post could be read the other way.

    Which boils down to this being an argument over semantics, not fact.

    Which made even sillier by the following sentence in PerlFAQ 1 which says
    "You may or may not choose to follow this usage." before going on to talk of
    parallelism.

    This has become a holy war over nothing, since it appears some regulars
    posters to clpm take the naming significantly more strongly than Larry does.

    Notwithstanding which, precision in the computer and technical newsgroups is
    highly desirable, and imprecision often the cause of confusion. I consider
    myself a case in point several times over.

    /rant

    Now I'm off to do something more fun...

    --
    Wyzelli
    print "Only perl can parse Perl\n";
    Thanks Tom for that gem.
     
    Peter Wyzl, Nov 7, 2004
    #17
  18. (krakle) writes:
    > Perl language. Perl code. perl interputer.


    What's the matter with you? The name of the program which interprets
    Perl code is manifestly "perl", not "Perl". /usr/bin/perl, for example,
    or /usr/local/bin/perl, not /usr/bin/Perl. (You can rename it that way,
    I guess, but then you can rename it to donaldduck too.)
     
    Arndt Jonasson, Nov 8, 2004
    #18
  19. Andrew Hamm

    krakle Guest

    "A. Sinan Unur" <> wrote in message news:<Xns9599EB325EC3Basu1cornelledu@132.236.56.8>...
    > (krakle) wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Perl language. Perl code. perl interputer.

    >
    > Define iterputer please. I don't think I have ever used one. I don't know
    > how I ever got by without one seeing as how vital it seems to Perl
    > programming.


    iterputer? I don't know how you ever got by english class.
     
    krakle, Nov 9, 2004
    #19
  20. krakle wrote:

    >> (krakle) wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>>Perl language. Perl code. perl interputer.

    >>

    >
    > iterputer? I don't know how you ever got by english class.


    Are you talking about yourself here? I hope so, because you're the idiot
    who can't spell "interpreter".

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
     
    Sherm Pendley, Nov 9, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ron Weldy

    Taking over project

    Ron Weldy, Jan 22, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    314
    Ron Weldy
    Jan 22, 2005
  2. Robert Blackwell

    taking over where someone else left off

    Robert Blackwell, Mar 13, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    359
    darrel
    Mar 14, 2006
  3. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    325
    Roedy Green
    Aug 22, 2005
  4. Fuzzyman

    Taking Over the Screen - Tkinter

    Fuzzyman, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    448
    Fuzzyman
    Feb 27, 2004
  5. Jim Cain
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    211
    Yukihiro Matsumoto
    Jul 18, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page