headers
Bernard Leak | 3 Nov 2006 22:12
Picon
Favicon

Perl Modules: some notes

Dear List,
                     this is a note on the Perl Modules page (which has no 
Wiki link I can find).
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/perl-modules.html
Last updated on 2006-06-21 11:26:07 -0500

The notes on 'Finance-Quote' say that the non-OOPy interface is
'depreciated'.  I'd be prepared to offer a discount on it, but
I think that 'deprecated' was meant.

A remark on Business-ISBN-1.82 says that many of the tests require
  LWP::Simple.  This is merely part of LWP, not a separate module
  (this is perhaps worth making clearer).

It's perhaps also worth pointing out that the modules listed include
both Digest-SHA and Digest-SHA1, and that they are NOT the same!

The following comments mostly record changes in the latest stable
release.  Some are a bit more difficult than that, though.

Algorithm-Diff-1.1901 NOW 1.1902
Archive-Tar-1.29 NOW 1.30
Compress-Zlib-1.41 NOW 2.001
  I had some trouble downloading the source archive from the cpan.org 
server,
  but succeeded eventually.
  There is no 'config.in' file in this new version to patch: the README
  implies that it uses the system installed libz by default (since it
  will gag on a sufficiently old version), so the original reason for
  the 'sed' script seems to have vanished.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Guy Dalziel | 3 Nov 2006 22:22
Picon

Re: Perl Modules: some notes

Technically depreciate and deprecate mean the same thing, "To think or
speak of as being of little worth; belittle.", although for the sake
of consistency, deprecated would be the desired word.
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Bernard Leak | 4 Nov 2006 03:37
Picon
Favicon

Re: Perl Modules: some notes

Dear List,
                     Guy Dalziel wrote:
>Technically depreciate and deprecate mean the same thing, "To think or
>speak of as being of little worth; belittle.", although for the sake
>of consistency, deprecated would be the desired word.

No.  To 'depreciate' means that (it's related to 'price').
To 'deprecate' does NOT mean that (indeed, it doesn't even mean
anything LIKE that, except that there's a vague negative association
with 'de-' in both cases).  To deprecate (related to 'pray') is to
ask that something not be done.

I missed the following changes to the current version of some of
the modules (I'd updated them previously):

Pod-Escapes-1.0.4 NOW Pod-Escapes-1.04
ExtUtils-ParseXS-2.15 NOW 2.16
Archive-Zip-1.16 NOW 1.18
Devel-Symdump-2.05 NOW 2.0604
Finance-QuoteHist-1.07 NOW 1.09

The revised list of changes is now
Algorithm-Diff-1.1901 NOW 1.1902
Archive-Tar-1.29 NOW 1.30
Archive-Zip-1.16 USING 1.18
Compress-Zlib-1.41 NOW 2.001
I had some trouble downloading the source archive from the cpan.org server,
but succeeded eventually.
There is no 'config.in' file in this new version to patch: the README
implies that it uses the system installed libz by default (since it
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Bernard Leak | 4 Nov 2006 04:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: Perl Modules: some notes

Dear List,
                    oops!  I'm not having a good day today.
The reference to
Pod-Escapes-1.0.4 NOW 1.04
is merely a correction of an error of mine, not anything to do with Book,
which has 1.04 anyway.
                                           Yours incoherently,

Bernard Leak.

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Randy McMurchy | 4 Nov 2006 16:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: Perl Modules: some notes

Bernard Leak wrote these words on 11/03/06 20:37 CST:
>                      Guy Dalziel wrote:
>> Technically depreciate and deprecate mean the same thing, "To think or
>> speak of as being of little worth; belittle.", although for the sake
>> of consistency, deprecated would be the desired word.
> 
> No.  To 'depreciate' means that (it's related to 'price').
> To 'deprecate' does NOT mean that (indeed, it doesn't even mean
> anything LIKE that, except that there's a vague negative association
> with 'de-' in both cases).  To deprecate (related to 'pray') is to
> ask that something not be done.

Hmmm...

My dictionary shows the two words to be synonyms. Perhaps Bernard
may have been better off simply saying that the 'preferred' word
would be 'deprecated', and leave it at that, rather than trying to
play grammar police. :-)

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.27] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
09:56:00 up 4 days, 10:41, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.13
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Randy McMurchy | 4 Nov 2006 17:11
Picon
Favicon

Re: Perl Modules: some notes

Bernard Leak wrote these words on 11/03/06 15:12 CST:

> The notes on 'Finance-Quote' say that the non-OOPy interface is
> 'depreciated'.

Good catch.

> A remark on Business-ISBN-1.82 says that many of the tests require
>   LWP::Simple.  This is merely part of LWP, not a separate module
>   (this is perhaps worth making clearer).

What else can be said about it? Perhaps provide some examples of
how it should be done, so it can be fixed. Is the part about it
being circular not enough clarification?

> It's perhaps also worth pointing out that the modules listed include
> both Digest-SHA and Digest-SHA1, and that they are NOT the same!

These two modules are shown as dependencies for separate modules,
There really shouldn't be any confusion. What would you suggest
be said, so to avoid the confusion.

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.27] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
09:59:00 up 4 days, 10:44, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.14, 0.12
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bernard Leak | 4 Nov 2006 20:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: Perl Modules: some notes

Dear List,

[Deprecate and depreciate]

Randy McMurchy wrote:
>My dictionary shows the two words to be synonyms.

Since you raised the point, I checked.  Mine doesn't.  Normally I'd use
the OED, but my copy is a long way away: I'm using the SOD as a
temporary substitute.  If your dictionary says something different, it's 
weird
and wrong.  What IS your dictionary?

I don't see that there is a commanding consensus of usage in favour of
the words having become synonymous.  It's true that they are sometimes
confused.

>Perhaps Bernard
>may have been better off simply saying that the 'preferred' word
>would be 'deprecated', and leave it at that, rather than trying to
>play grammar police. :-)

Why should anyone care about my preferences?  I wrote what I
meant to write.  It's nasty threatening people like me, wielding actual
semicolons without protective clothing, who make the life of Humpty
Dumpty so fearfully hard.  We do it because we're like that.  It's only
semantics, as they say: what else would it be?

Enough (and more)!  I'll leave it at that.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Bruce Dubbs | 4 Nov 2006 21:03
Picon

Re: Perl Modules: some notes

Bernard Leak wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> My dictionary shows the two words to be synonyms.
> 
> Since you raised the point, I checked.  Mine doesn't.  Normally I'd use
> the OED, but my copy is a long way away: I'm using the SOD as a
> temporary substitute.  If your dictionary says something different, it's
> weird
> and wrong.  What IS your dictionary?

www.dictionary.com:

de‧pre‧ci‧ate  /dɪˈpriʃiˌeɪt/

–verb (used with object)
1.	to reduce the purchasing value of (money).
2.	to lessen the value or price of.
3.	to claim depreciation on (a property) for tax purposes.
4.	to represent as of little value or merit; belittle.
–verb (used without object)
5.	to decline in value.
[Origin: 1640–50; < LL dēpretiātus undervalued (ptp. of dēpretiāre, in
ML sp. dēpreciāre), equiv. to L dē- de- + preti(um) price + -ātus -ate1]

—Related forms
de‧pre‧ci‧at‧ing‧ly, adverb
de‧pre‧ci‧a‧tor, noun

—Synonyms 4. disparage, decry, minimize.
—Usage note 4. See deprecate.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rainer Wirtz | 5 Nov 2006 03:35
Picon
Picon

reiserfsprogs-3.6.19: make fails, missing header

Hi
When trying to compile reiserfsprogs-3.6.19 on a LFS-svn-20061028 
system, make fails with:

In file included from ../include/reiserfs_lib.h:14,
                 from includes.h:12,
                 from do_balan.c:20:
../include/reiserfs_fs.h:41:27: error: asm/unaligned.h: No such file or 
directory

Looks like asm/unaligned.h is not installed by the install_headers 
target of linux.

I assume current BLFS-SVN is only expected to work with LFS-6.2, but I 
thought I inform you of troubles ahead.

Rainer
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Dan Nicholson | 5 Nov 2006 04:10
Picon

Re: reiserfsprogs-3.6.19: make fails, missing header

On 11/4/06, Rainer Wirtz <rainer.wirtz <at> gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi
> When trying to compile reiserfsprogs-3.6.19 on a LFS-svn-20061028
> system, make fails with:
>
> In file included from ../include/reiserfs_lib.h:14,
>                  from includes.h:12,
>                  from do_balan.c:20:
> ../include/reiserfs_fs.h:41:27: error: asm/unaligned.h: No such file or
> directory
>
>
> Looks like asm/unaligned.h is not installed by the install_headers
> target of linux.

Yep. Try out this patch from fedora:

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/reiserfs-utils/header-fix.patch?view=markup

It's always a good idea to check at fedora if you're having trouble
with headers because they're using the same headers for FC6.

> I assume current BLFS-SVN is only expected to work with LFS-6.2, but I
> thought I inform you of troubles ahead.

Unfortunately, yes.

--
Dan
--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane