Re: Pure Perl or the toolkit?


Syntactic Confectionery Delight
	PerlMonks

Re: Pure Perl or the toolkit?

by crouchingpenguin (Priest)

on Aug 21, 2003 at 13:24 UTC ( [id://285455]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to Pure Perl or the toolkit?

Since you're already using make, why not use install as well from within the Makefile? install should be available on most any system that has some form of make avaible. That seems to satisfy the required simplicity as well as being fairly portable. Instead of worrying about whats missing in File::Copy, just add an install call to your make target like so:

FILES=/tmp/one /tmp/two /tmp/three
DEST=/tmp/mounted_image

install:
     install -m 0755 $(FILES) $(DEST)
[download]

cp
----
"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic."

Comment on Re: Pure Perl or the toolkit? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Pure Perl or the toolkit?
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Aug 21, 2003 at 13:44 UTC

Sure, I could drive the entire thing with make, and lots of things are already done in pure make. But then I would have to start parsing configuration files as well. Not impossible, but sometimes, it's easier to use Perl.

Abigail

[reply]

In Section Meditations