Stas Bekman wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
What I'm trying (failing?) to point out is that on BSD and other platforms, if
they have a bug, they can munge *PERL*, not ApacheTest, not each and every perl
script which creates perl files, with an effective value of $Config{startperl}.
What yo
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[...]
$Config{sh}, $Config{perlpath}, and $Config{perl} comes from -this-
perl, right?
right
#/usr/bin/perl is a hardcode to an arbitrary perl installed at that
location.
What I'm trying (failing?) to point out is that on BSD and other
platforms, if
they have a
Stas Bekman wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I don't think the reporter understood the concept of
#!/usr/bin/perl
eval 'exec $Config{perlpath} -S \$0 \${1+"\$@"}'
if \$running_under_some_shell;
which is a noop under perl, and invokes a shell exec command under shell. Perl
never invokes t
>> In any case, this sort of hack should be left to the value of
>> $Config{startperl}
>> where it belongs, not a dozen workarounds in a dozen different projects.
>
>
> I'm not following you, how $Config{startperl} solves the problem of the
> long path, if just as you say it makes the script run
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I don't think the reporter understood the concept of
#!/usr/bin/perl
eval 'exec $Config{perlpath} -S \$0 \${1+"\$@"}'
if \$running_under_some_shell;
which is a noop under perl, and invokes a shell exec command under
shell. Perl
never invokes the exec ($running_un
I don't think the reporter understood the concept of
#!/usr/bin/perl
eval 'exec $Config{perlpath} -S \$0 \${1+"\$@"}'
if \$running_under_some_shell;
which is a noop under perl, and invokes a shell exec command under shell. Perl
never invokes the exec ($running_under_some_shell is undef and th
Geoffrey Young wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Both lib/Apache/TestConfig.pm and lib/Apache/TestUtil.pm twist off their
own shebang lines from $Config{perlpath}, which is wrong.
I think part of this stems from this
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/dev/86017
Mike's patch
Geoffrey Young wrote:
ack and discuss :) let's hold off on making any changes until we are really
sure we won't be breaking old platforms. speaking of breakage, which
platform is giving your grief with this? randy reported success with win32
so it's something else?
Something else. My perl/
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Both lib/Apache/TestConfig.pm and lib/Apache/TestUtil.pm twist off their
> own shebang lines from $Config{perlpath}, which is wrong.
I think part of this stems from this
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/dev/86017
>
> They should simply pull $Config