Re: [Hampshire] Am I correct

Jacqui Caren wrote:
>> I would advise against making a symbolic link for perl - I have done
>> that, and perl couldn't find its modules. The symlink was from
>> /usr/local/bin/perl to /usr/bin/perl, so perl looked in /usr/local/lib
>> for modules, instead of /usr/lib.
>>
>
> ???
>
> Perl -V will tell you the paths(plural) that libraries are included from.
>
> If you want multiple perls installed you will need ot install them
> yourself.
>
This appears to have inverted the original query (which was about
referring to a single perl version from multiple places).
> There are tricks to get a single perl to use differnet include paths
> depending upon where it is installed but IMHo these are just plain
> "shack-nasty" and a possible security risk if you mess up.
>
>
I don't think this was required either - all that Tim was trying to do
was to access the same libraries, but make the call to perl be different.

I've checked a number of more recent perl versions, and all seem to
embed the library path in the executable, so *would* survive the
symbolic link hack (maybe my problem was with older Perl versions).
That said, I don't think that this is a good use of symbolic links - it
only hides the actual program location. Much better, I think, to fix
the call to the program.

simon