[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#5317: new perl has different arch directory



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Winfried Truemper, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>has the new version of perl other defaults?

Actually, it's gotten better at detecting bugs in scripts.

>After installing "5.003.07" it moans in several cgi-scripts:
>
>"my" variable $waitedpid masks earlier declaration in same scope at /vol/mi/www/cgi-bin/SFgate line 219. 
>[...]
>Sorry, but I can't just fix all that ugly perl-scripts on my machine.
>I didn't wrote them.
>
>They used to run flawlessly before installing the new debian package
>and now I have a great mess because I can't downgrade to the old version.

Really, it's a feature.  Would you complain if your compiler told you
about more flaws in your programs that could bite you later?

If you aren't going to be modifying these, you don't need the -w switch
that is generating those warnings.  The top line in
/vol/mi/www/cgi-bin/SFgate will look something like:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w    or   #!/usr/bin/perl -Tw
Just remove the w (and the dash if the w is the only option) and you
won't get those warnings anymore...

Darren
- -- 
<torin@daft.com> <http://www.daft.com/~torin> <torin@debian.org> <torin@io.com>
Darren Stalder/2608 Second Ave, @282/Seattle, WA 98121-1212/USA/+1-800-921-4996
@ Do you have your clothes on? I probably don't. Take yours off. Feel better. @
@ Sysadmin, webweaver, postmaster for hire.  C/Perl/CGI programmer and tutor. @

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMok21Y4wrq++1Ls5AQHmhQP+O1l5y8VtwgWOx5nGSJHGacHjEA/MYVRj
/SJXe5N1CJZnU9lACua3uAWy/+4Dt8921THwbvCGELv7OZi4LdT67y5BQhV1pHU4
jZFR44XU8sQ9Id4kNXwJ1FIy5AGIEhX6rTAwiy8g+WLXGPhQoCXXe5tcnBMFuL/l
/GL9Bb1bDtM=
=CZ8u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com


Reply to: