From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 13 04:43:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C931616A4CE for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9E443D5C for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:43:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cedric.devillers@script.jussieu.fr) Received: from tzolkin.script.jussieu.fr (tzolkin.script.jussieu.fr [134.157.164.8])i4DBhqtg093390 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 13:43:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Ids: 167 Received: from ganymede (ganymede.script.jussieu.fr [134.157.164.36]) (8.12.10/8.12.10/SCRIPT-1.1.18.1/1.1.8.1) with SMTP id i4DBhpsP000879 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 13:43:51 +0200 (MEST) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:43:51 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?B?Q+lkcmlj?= Devillers To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20040513134351.68bf9414.cedric.devillers@script.jussieu.fr> In-Reply-To: <40A1DCFA.1020506@users.sourceforge.net> References: <40A0C03B.5080906@users.sourceforge.net> <20040511183921.GA33494@xor.obsecurity.org> <40A17E44.7040900@users.sourceforge.net> <20040512093625.599d2e86.cedric.devillers@script.jussieu.fr> <40A1DCFA.1020506@users.sourceforge.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.4claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-debian-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 40A35F78.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Antivirus: scanned by sophie at shiva.jussieu.fr Subject: Re: Secure NFS (sNFS) on 4-Stable: has somebody succeeded? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:43:56 -0000 On Wed, 12 May 2004 17:14:50 +0900 Rob wrote: > Thanks a lot, I then can explore further (but please bear in mind that I > am a total dummy with perl). > > Perl comes with the FreeBSD-4-Stable base system as: > 10 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 10168 May 11 20:39 /usr/bin/perl > 10 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 10168 May 11 20:39 /usr/bin/perl5 > 10 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 10168 May 11 20:39 /usr/bin/perl5.00503 > > > Exactly same sizes!! Exactly same file? > > When I do: > > $ perl -e 'print "@INC\n";' I don't know. > I get no output at all. Why? > > When I do: > > $ perl5 -e 'print "@INC\n";' > /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/i386-freebsd > /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005 > . > /usr/libdata/perl/5.00503/mach > /usr/libdata/perl/5.00503 > $ I have the same result but with the command perl too. > The last line is the directory where I have: ExtUtils/MakeMaker.pm > So I suppose the perl path is okay. > > Let me then go back to the secure NFS package, cd into problem directory > and type: > > $ perl5 Makefile.PL > Checking if your kit is complete... > Looks good > Could not eval ' > package ExtUtils::MakeMaker::_version; > no strict; > > local $VERSION; > $VERSION=undef; do { > our $VERSION = '1.54'; > }; $VERSION > ' in SNFS.pm: Can't modify subroutine entry in scalar assignment at > (eval 6) line 7, at EOF$ > > > SNFS.pm is a long file (script?) of 1680 lines. It says in the top few lines: > > package SNFS; > > use 5.006; > use strict; > use warnings; > > require Exporter; > use AutoLoader qw(AUTOLOAD); > > our @ISA = qw(Exporter); > > [...zip...] > > > Why this is not working? On Wed, 12 May 2004 17:23:09 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote: > Yup. 'our' is a new keyword introduced in perl 5.6.x -- your version > of perl is too old to run this software. Your best bet is to install > a more recent version of perl from the ports (perl-5.8.2 recommended). you can test to compile the package by replacing the occurences of "our" by "my" and by looking the result. Attention, no guarantee that that functions !!! > Is the difference between perl versions 5.005 and 5.006 so essential? > Comparing these version numbers, this looks more like a small bug fix to me. > However, if the difference is so important, then why are we still hanging on > to 5.005 in the FreeBSD base system, without 'upgrading' that to 5.006 or > whatever? I did not look at yet which are these differences. Sorry. > Thanks so much! Good luck ! > Rob. Cedric