Getopt::Long install problems

[Mark J Fenbers]

I've successfully installed numerous Perl modules from CPAN. (I almost
get the feeling that I know what I am doing.) But I downloaded the
latest release of Getopt::Long and ran 'perl Makefile.PL' which created
the Makefile, but complained that pod2man was not in the PATH (but, "Oh,
yes it is!"). Nonetheless, I ran 'make' and it gave me this message:

make:87: *** missing separator. Stop.

So I checked out line 87 and found this line:

installman1

which I appended ='' so it looked like this:

installman1=''

This satisfied that error and then made the same complaint about line
97. Fixed that the same way and several new errors came up complaining
about unexpected EOF while looking for matching quote... I noticed that
there were numberous unclosed or unopened single quotes througout the
Makefile. Obviously, something got way out of whack and I never could
fix the Makefile to the point where it ran. What did I do wrong, or
what is wrong with Getopt::Long? Does the fact that the supposedly
zipped tar file ends in a tar.tar extention instead of a tar.gz
extention have anything to do with my problem? Or is this just sloppy
work on the part of the maintainer? Anybody able to help me??

Mark

 

[Harry]

Mark J Fenbers wrote...

Does the fact that the supposedly
zipped tar file ends in a tar.tar extention instead of a tar.gz
extention have anything to do with my problem?

Looks like it's *your* problem.
Before you download, the source link property should say
Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz. So, if your download has the name tar.tar
instead of tar.gz, your browser is not set up properly.

If your browser download it in ASCII mode, your tar ball would be
screwed up. Try download it again using wget.

wget http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Getopt/Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

Ten uppack it using gnu tar.

tar -xzf Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

Good luck.

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

Looks like it's *your* problem.

Before you download, the source link property should say
Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz. So, if your download has the name tar.tar
instead of tar.gz, your browser is not set up properly.

If your browser download it in ASCII mode, your tar ball would be
screwed up. Try download it again using wget.

wget http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Getopt/Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

I've downloaded tar.gz files many times before. This is the first time I've
run into this. Unfortunately, my Linux box is locked tight behind a firewall
and it has no direct Internet access, so I have to use a PC to get the file
and place it on a network drive, then tunnel in from the Linux box to fetch
it. Therefore, I cannot use wget. I tried getting the file with the latest
versions of both IE and Netscape and my results are the same, except using
Netscape I get a file extention of tar.gz instead of tar.tar...

What would cause my browser to download it in ASCII mode?

Any other ideas of what to do next?

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

Looks like it's *your* problem.

Before you download, the source link property should say
Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz. So, if your download has the name tar.tar
instead of tar.gz, your browser is not set up properly.

If your browser download it in ASCII mode, your tar ball would be
screwed up. Try download it again using wget.

wget http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Getopt/Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

I've downloaded tar.gz files many times before. This is the first time I've
run into this. Unfortunately, my Linux box is locked tight behind a firewall
and it has no direct Internet access, so I have to use a PC to get the file
and place it on a network drive, then tunnel in from the Linux box to fetch
it. Therefore, I cannot use wget. I tried getting the file with the latest
versions of both IE and Netscape and my results are the same, except using
Netscape I get a file extention of tar.gz instead of tar.tar...

What would cause my browser to download it in ASCII mode?

Well, I downloaded it using the FTP protocol, too. But the 'make' command
still gave me the same results. I does appear that the problem is in fact
with the gzipped tar file. But I would LOVE to be proven otherwise, as I
really need to get this done tonight...

Any other ideas of what to do next?

Mark

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

Looks like it's *your* problem.

Before you download, the source link property should say
Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz. So, if your download has the name tar.tar
instead of tar.gz, your browser is not set up properly.

If your browser download it in ASCII mode, your tar ball would be
screwed up. Try download it again using wget.

wget http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Getopt/Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

I've downloaded tar.gz files many times before. This is the first time I've
run into this. Unfortunately, my Linux box is locked tight behind a firewall
and it has no direct Internet access, so I have to use a PC to get the file
and place it on a network drive, then tunnel in from the Linux box to fetch
it. Therefore, I cannot use wget. I tried getting the file with the latest
versions of both IE and Netscape and my results are the same, except using
Netscape I get a file extention of tar.gz instead of tar.tar...

What would cause my browser to download it in ASCII mode?

Well, I downloaded it using the FTP protocol, too. But the 'make' command
still gave me the same results. I does appear that the problem is in fact
with the gzipped tar file. But I would LOVE to be proven otherwise, as I
really need to get this done tonight...

Any other ideas of what to do next?

Mark

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

Looks like it's *your* problem.

Before you download, the source link property should say
Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz. So, if your download has the name tar.tar
instead of tar.gz, your browser is not set up properly.

If your browser download it in ASCII mode, your tar ball would be
screwed up. Try download it again using wget.

wget http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Getopt/Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

I've downloaded tar.gz files many times before. This is the first time I've
run into this. Unfortunately, my Linux box is locked tight behind a firewall
and it has no direct Internet access, so I have to use a PC to get the file
and place it on a network drive, then tunnel in from the Linux box to fetch
it. Therefore, I cannot use wget. I tried getting the file with the latest
versions of both IE and Netscape and my results are the same, except using
Netscape I get a file extention of tar.gz instead of tar.tar...

What would cause my browser to download it in ASCII mode?

Well, I downloaded it using the FTP protocol, too. But the 'make' command
still gave me the same results. I does appear that the problem is in fact
with the gzipped tar file. But I would LOVE to be proven otherwise, as I
really need to get this done tonight...

Any other ideas of what to do next?

Mark

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

Looks like it's *your* problem.

Before you download, the source link property should say
Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz. So, if your download has the name tar.tar
instead of tar.gz, your browser is not set up properly.

If your browser download it in ASCII mode, your tar ball would be
screwed up. Try download it again using wget.

wget http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Getopt/Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

I've downloaded tar.gz files many times before. This is the first time I've
run into this. Unfortunately, my Linux box is locked tight behind a firewall
and it has no direct Internet access, so I have to use a PC to get the file
and place it on a network drive, then tunnel in from the Linux box to fetch
it. Therefore, I cannot use wget. I tried getting the file with the latest
versions of both IE and Netscape and my results are the same, except using
Netscape I get a file extention of tar.gz instead of tar.tar...

What would cause my browser to download it in ASCII mode?

Well, I downloaded it using the FTP protocol, too. But the 'make' command
still gave me the same results. I does appear that the problem is in fact
with the gzipped tar file. But I would LOVE to be proven otherwise, as I
really need to get this done tonight...

Any other ideas of what to do next?

Mark

 

[Bill Karwin]

I've successfully installed numerous Perl modules from CPAN. (I almost
get the feeling that I know what I am doing.) But I downloaded the
latest release of Getopt::Long and ran 'perl Makefile.PL' which created
the Makefile, but complained that pod2man was not in the PATH (but, "Oh,
yes it is!"). Nonetheless, I ran 'make' and it gave me this message:

make:87: *** missing separator. Stop.

So I checked out line 87 and found this line:

installman1

Shouldn't this be "INSTALLMAN1DIR"? I think your MakeMaker isn't
producing the Makefile correctly. What version of Perl and
ExtUtils::MakeMaker are you using?

Run these commands:
perl --version
perl -MExtUtils::MakeMaker -e 'print "$ExtUtils::MakeMaker::VERSION\n";'

I don't think it's an issue of your tar file getting corrupted. If it
had, most likely you wouldn't be able to extract the files at all.

I'm using Perl 5.8.4, ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.17, gmake 3.80 on FreeBSD
4.9. I tried downloading and building Getopt::Long, using the cpan
shell, and it worked fine.

Regards,
Bill K.

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

Looks like it's *your* problem.

Before you download, the source link property should say
Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz. So, if your download has the name tar.tar
instead of tar.gz, your browser is not set up properly.

If your browser download it in ASCII mode, your tar ball would be
screwed up. Try download it again using wget.

wget http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Getopt/Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

I've downloaded tar.gz files many times before. This is the first time I've
run into this. Unfortunately, my Linux box is locked tight behind a firewall
and it has no direct Internet access, so I have to use a PC to get the file
and place it on a network drive, then tunnel in from the Linux box to fetch
it. Therefore, I cannot use wget. I tried getting the file with the latest
versions of both IE and Netscape and my results are the same, except using
Netscape I get a file extention of tar.gz instead of tar.tar...

What would cause my browser to download it in ASCII mode?

Well, I downloaded it using the FTP protocol, too. But the 'make' command
still gave me the same results. I does appear that the problem is in fact
with the gzipped tar file. But I would LOVE to be proven otherwise, as I
really need to get this done tonight...

Any other ideas of what to do next?

Mark

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

Looks like it's *your* problem.

Before you download, the source link property should say
Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz. So, if your download has the name tar.tar
instead of tar.gz, your browser is not set up properly.

If your browser download it in ASCII mode, your tar ball would be
screwed up. Try download it again using wget.

wget http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Getopt/Getopt-Long-2.34.tar.gz

I've downloaded tar.gz files many times before. This is the first time I've
run into this. Unfortunately, my Linux box is locked tight behind a firewall
and it has no direct Internet access, so I have to use a PC to get the file
and place it on a network drive, then tunnel in from the Linux box to fetch
it. Therefore, I cannot use wget. I tried getting the file with the latest
versions of both IE and Netscape and my results are the same, except using
Netscape I get a file extention of tar.gz instead of tar.tar...

What would cause my browser to download it in ASCII mode?

Well, I downloaded it using the FTP protocol, too. But the 'make' command
still gave me the same results. I does appear that the problem is in fact
with the gzipped tar file. But I would LOVE to be proven otherwise, as I
really need to get this done tonight...

Any other ideas of what to do next?

Mark

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

Perl 5.8.0
MakeMaker 6.03
make Gnu 3.79.1
RedHat 9

Mark

 

[A. Sinan Unur]

Mark:

I am going to suggest that you read the posting guidelines for this group
before proceeding any further.

Avoid top-posting.

Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt

Avoid attachments.

And the main reason I am even bothering to write this, do not post multiple
copies of the same message. Given the fact that you posted the exact same
message at 6:49, 6:55, 6:58, 7:00, 7:03, 7:08, and 7:11 EST I am inclined
not to think it was by accident.

Sinan.

 

[Mark J Fenbers]

I am going to suggest that you read the posting guidelines for this group

before proceeding any further.

Why be so arrogant? I've read them long ago... I know what the "rules" are.
But are you perfect? Excuse me for not being perfect (yet)!!

Avoid top-posting.

I know!! Geez! A few quick facts right at the top where someone who is kind
enough to help me can see them easily. Why make it harder for him to see it?
What's the big deal? I have a side business and respond to many customers, and
here at work we get all kinds of e-mail from the public and employees, and
99.9% of the 200+ e-mails I get daily from these combined are top-posters. Why
does this newsgroup have to be different? It makes the group seem cliquey.

Avoid attachments.

Right. But the v-card thing I can't help. You'll have to deal with it. I
need it there for all my other e-mail and I can't seem to turn it off for
newsgroup postings with the old version of Communicator we are required to
use. My hands are tied.

And the main reason I am even bothering to write this, do not post multiple
copies of the same message. Given the fact that you posted the exact same
message at 6:49, 6:55, 6:58, 7:00, 7:03, 7:08, and 7:11 EST I am inclined
not to think it was by accident.

Do you REALLY think I did this on purpose?? Hello?! Is anybody home?? Our T1
line has been bouncing up and down like a yo-yo this evening (MCI has been
dispatched) and I kept getting bounce-back errors which I thought were related
to this.

You have to realize that most people don't "live" on the newsgroup and spend
hours and hours pouring through newsgroup messages to know the rules or posting
conventions. The majority of people post a question and hope or pray for an
appropriate answer to solve their problem. I don't feel its your job to judge
them or look down on them because they didn't follow the rules. The whole idea
behind newsgroups in the first place is to be kind and helpful and to share
with others the knowledge and experience you have gained. If you are going to
be unkind to and critical of people, why are you here?

Mark

 

[Tad McClellan]

Mark:

I am going to suggest that you read the posting guidelines for this group
before proceeding any further.

I asked him to do that a year ago.

It was not well received.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
(wherein _I_ am entreated to follow netiquette!)

(and I got an email with similar foolishness.)

Avoid top-posting.

I asked for that too.

Avoid attachments.

And I asked for that as well.

And the main reason I am even bothering to write this, do not post multiple
copies of the same message. Given the fact that you posted the exact same
message at 6:49, 6:55, 6:58, 7:00, 7:03, 7:08, and 7:11 EST I am inclined
not to think it was by accident.

Mark does not give a rat's ass about other people's time.

Quit the shouting and just answer the damn question. Now!

 

[Keith Keller]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

And I asked for that as well.

I like killfiling on

Content-type: multipart/mixed

To be fair, I'd have guessed that it was by accident, had my
newsreader not scored down his multipart posts.

- --keith

- --
(e-mail address removed)-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBYh05hVcNCxZ5ID8RAnFEAJ9NOyHIuO1i7+7vVl8iVXaaaAcr8QCglEfu
wnUVbfreBuL1sPL2HazKgds=
=ju/0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Harry]

Mark J Fenbers wrote...

Well, I downloaded it using the FTP protocol, too. But the 'make' command
still gave me the same results. I does appear that the problem is in fact
with the gzipped tar file. But I would LOVE to be proven otherwise, as I
really need to get this done tonight...

Below is what happen on my cygwin environment.
You can do it by hand, to simulate "make all" and "make install".
That is, run the copy manually.


$ perl Makefile.PL

Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
Writing Makefile for Getopt::Long

$ make all
cp lib/Getopt/Long.pm blib/lib/Getopt/Long.pm
cp lib/newgetopt.pl blib/lib/newgetopt.pl
Manifying blib/man3/Getopt.Long.3

$ make install
Installing /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/newgetopt.pl
Installing /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/Getopt/Long.pm
Installing /usr/local/man/man3/Getopt.Long.3
Writing /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/cygwin/auto/Getopt/Long/.packlist
Appending installation info to /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/cygwin/perllocal.pod

 

[Tad McClellan]

I like killfiling on

Content-type: multipart/mixed

Me too, which is why I suggested he not do it.


(I don't think he knows what a killfile is though...)

 

[Anno Siegel]

-=-=-=-=-=-


Why be so arrogant? I've read them long ago... I know what the "rules" are.

....but ignore them anyhow.

Right. But the v-card thing I can't help. You'll have to deal with it. I

We will. So long...

Anno

 

[Tad McClellan]

[ snip MIME header ]

[ did NOT snip attributions because there were no attributions left ]

Why be so arrogant?

Person1 inadvertently takes cuts in line, despite a clearly-formed
line and a sign that says "Please form a single line". Maybe he
was preoccupied or something and did not notice.

Person2 says "this is the middle of the line, the end is over there".

Why is Person2 so arrogant?

I've read them long ago... I know what the "rules" are.

Oh, I see.

Person1 sees a clearly-formed line and a sign that says "Please form a
single line" but takes cuts anyway. Maybe he has "special circumstances"
that do not apply to everyone else standing there.

Person2 says "this is the middle of the line, the end is over there".

Why is Person2 so arrogant?

But are you perfect? Excuse me for not being perfect (yet)!!

Missing one or two points of etiquette might be seen as imperfect.

Piling on a bunch of them might be seen as, errr..., arrogance.

I know everyone is supposed to follow some rules, but I
am not going to.

What's the big deal?

It can cause you to become killfiled, hurting your chances of getting
answers to future questions.

here at work we get all kinds of e-mail from the public and employees, and
99.9% of the 200+ e-mails I get daily from these combined are top-posters.

Email is not Usenet!

Confusing the two can lead to great peril, as seen in this thread...

Why
does this newsgroup have to be different?

1) Because Usenet is not email.

2) It is not "this newsgroup" that sees top-posting, MIME and whatnot
as unacceptable, they are unacceptable in nearly all newsgroups.

It makes the group seem cliquey.

Since the "rules" apply on most newsgroups, most newsgroups *are* cliquey.

That is why they have separate newsgroups. A newsgroup for the Perl clique,
a newsgroup for the Disney World clique, a newsgroup for the photography
buff clique...

Right. But the v-card thing I can't help. You'll have to deal with it.

Many people will have their newsreader set to auto-delete your posts then.

You decide whether you want to reduce your chances of getting an
answer or not, then you live with the consequences of your decision.

need it there for all my other e-mail

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Usenet is not email!

My hands are tied.

Then your articles are doomed to a reduced readership. Live with it.

Do you REALLY think I did this on purpose??

After observing a half dozen breaches of netiquette it is unfathomable
to think that there might have been seven?

Hello?! Is anybody home??

Pot, kettle, black.

Our T1
line has been bouncing up and down like a yo-yo this evening (MCI has been
dispatched) and I kept getting bounce-back errors which I thought were related
to this.

Oh right, we should have known that somehow.

How silly to form a conclusion from only the information presently available.

You have to realize that most people don't "live" on the newsgroup and spend
hours and hours pouring through newsgroup messages

You have to realize that those are the people most likely to provide
you with your answer.

Do you want them to read your question or do you want it to be
auto-deleted as if it never existed?

You make your choice and then you live with the consequences of your choice.

to know the rules or posting
conventions.

But you don't have to spend "hours and hours" on that in "this newsgroup".

Some joker wrote them all down for you and posts them twice a week.

"hours and hours" has been reduced to about 10 minutes for "this newsgroup".



Your "hours and hours" scenario does not apply in this situation,
and so is not an argument that helps support your position.

The majority of people post a question and hope or pray for an
appropriate answer to solve their problem.

The majority of people get their questions answered without
flaunting the rules of netiquette.

You are not a member of that set of people.

I don't feel

Your thoughts and opinions are sure to be seen as Very Important
to all observers, thank you for sharing your obvious wisdom.

 

[Joe Smith]

Unfortunately, my Linux box is locked tight behind a firewall
and it has no direct Internet access, so I have to use a PC to get the file

Have you considered installing Perl on that very PC, at least enough
to get Getopt::Long working?
-Joe