[Catalyst] Debian recommendation

Alejandro Imass alejandro.imass at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 16:44:30 GMT 2009

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM, J. Shirley <jshirley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Andrew Rodland <andrew at cleverdomain.org>
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 27 October 2009 07:14:02 pm Evan Carroll wrote:
>> > > Then I suppose it's a good thing that no such thing happens.
>> >
>> > Sure it happens;
>> Taking the world's most goddamn *stupid*, unpredictable, and
>> un-packageable
>> code and turning it into something that's actually *maintainable* and
>> meets
>> the most minimum guidelines for a well-behaved package is not "taking
>> something and knowingly breaking it", it's saving me from having to do
>> violent
>> things to people.
>> And the changes don't break anything unless you do something fundamentally
>> stupid, like touching the files with the big NOT YOURS signs on them.
>> (i.e.
>> running CPAN as root.)
> Please don't feed the trolls.
> Evan's typical MO is to take a single example and convert it into a grossly
> inflammatory statement.  Whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant, but
> it usually ends up with incensing people just like you.
> This is why he's banned nearly everywhere he goes.
> -J

Yes, in fact the only problem right now that I have had is precisely
with SAX, and it _only_ happens if you happen to install a SAX.pm
module _before_ you tried to install it via dpkg. So all you have to
do to fix it is:

1) aptitude purge whatever modules have not completed the
post-processing scripts.
2) Eliminate the CPAN or manually installed version of SAX
3) aptitude install the modules in (1)

The error that dpkg raises clearly fails when registering the moudles
saying something like "maybe there is another version of SAX installed
on your system", so it should have been obvious for the OP to realize
what was going on.

I second you in the fact that is an unnecessary flame. A simple "hey
guys has anyone had problems with SAX in Debian?" would have sufficed.

In my experience Perl XML modules in general tended to be problematic
in different environments in the past mainly due to encoding issues in
the tests, although this has reduced dramatically in the past few
years (IMO) since the default mainstream Linux and Windows locales are
now utf.

I think that maybe people expect Perl stuff to work like binary
distros but they are not. Honestly, I would second a motion to remove
binary Perl modules altogether from distros and use CPAN for


More information about the Catalyst mailing list