Re: [Hampshire] Am I correct

On Wednesday 14 January 2009 16:02:05 Simon Reap wrote:
> 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

OK just to clarify this is what the instructions say

If the Perl interpreter (or a link to it) isn't located at /usr/bin/perl,
you'll have to either create a new symlink at that location or change the
first line of each .pl script.

Now I have done

which perl

on the cli and got in return

/usr/bin/perl

So I can assume from that then that I don't need to symlink anything to
anywhere??

Tim