Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Users
(November 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Does perl 5.001 unoff. patch 1m count as being better than 5.001e?
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:44:16 -0600 (CST)
To: zach @ crest . org (Zach Nobel)
Cc: majordomo-users @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961113174654.26759F-100000@solstice> from "Zach Nobel" at Nov 13, 96 05:51:15 pm
Reply-to: Dave Wolfe <david_wolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>

[ Zach Nobel writes: ]
> 
> Quick question for folks in the know. I've got perl version 5.001
> Unofficial patchlevel 1m (as indicated by perl5 -v).  Is this usable? Or
> is 5.001e an 'official' patch where the Unoffical patch (1m) doesn't have
> the requisite characteristics.

'm' is just as (un)official as 'e', but several patches better. If
you're thinking of updating (and you should be), get at least 5.003.

-- 
 Dave Wolfe


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: 1.94 resend options fail?
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>
Next: Re: Majrodomo Duping...
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Does perl 5.001 unoff. patch 1m count as being better than 5.001e?
From: Zach Nobel <zach@crest.org>
Next: Help with errors
From: greg.harrison@analog.com (greg harrison)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com