Apple's Mac OS X Update Breaks Perl

mir writes "It looks like if you use CPAN to install modules, Apple's latest security update might just have broken your Perl. According to Tatsuhiko Miyagawa 'The Security Update brings (old) IO.bundle with version 1.22 but your IO.pm has been updated to the latest 1.23 on CPAN shell. (But hey, 1.23 was released in 2006...Why do you bring that ancient version back, Apple!?)'."

Comments

Fighting over the same file

[Ed Avis]

Why are Apple's updater and Perl's CPAN shell both trying to update the same file? If the file's there as part of the Apple OS then only the OS's package manager should touch it, and Perl should leave it alone (installing its own version in /usr/local if necessary). It's exactly the same on Linux distributions: the CPAN shell doesn't try to mess with the system perl which is updated using rpm or dpkg.

Re:Fighting over the same file

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

We don't exactly have "package managers" in OS X.

Sure we do, a bunch of them. That's kind of the problem.

Anything you really want to actually work with, you have to maintain yourself

That's a bit of an overstatement. Anything you want a cutting edge version of you'd do well to install and maintain yourself outside of Apple's update path, but for most people just using the Apple installed versions is fine.

Re:Fighting over the same file

[Alrescha]

"Why are Apple's updater and Perl's CPAN shell both trying to update the same file? If the file's there as part of the Apple OS then only the OS's package manager should touch it, and Perl should leave it alone (installing its own version in /usr/local if necessary)."

Why must we learn these lessons again and again? Back in the beginning of time (1983), we learned the following:

Rule #1: Never change *anything* that [vendor] sends you

Rule #2: Always keep your stuff separate from [vendor]

(thank you Melinda)

Why does this "break" anything?

[mi]

The Security Update brings (old) IO.bundle with version 1.22 but your IO.pm has been updated to the latest 1.23 on CPAN shell. (But hey, 1.23 was released in 2006...Why do you bring that ancient version back, Apple!?)'."

The real question is (or ought to be), why is the 1-digit difference in the minor version number break things? If the 1.22 -> 1.23 change was important (as in interface-changing or something), shouldn't the new version have been named 1.3 or even 2.0?

Comparing Apple's Release Cycle to MS

[aztracker1]

That's funny... since 2000, MS has had two releases you'd have to pay to upgrade to... How many has Apple had? more than two... As for being constrained to the release cycle most new software runs in XP still... how much new Mac software runs in less than 10.3? not much.

I actually like OSX, it has a consistent UI on a Unix core. But your arguments only show your ignorance. For the record I like different aspects of a lot of OSes. There are even parts of Vista I like (mainly the restructuring of the user paths... though would rather have an "ALL" user back, opposed to the new location for global settings. I like that Linux has a FLOSS mindset, even if the zealots can't find a balance with commercial software.

I don' like a lot of the more politically minded decisions MS and others have taken. I find it ironic that Linux fanbois will use Samba, but ignore Mono because of patent concerns. Zealots from every corner are wrong, and spread FUD, it's what they do... the truth is generally somewhere in the middle.

-- happy Windows, Linux, BSD & Mac User