Why doesn't ActiveState update this documentation?

Posted by brycarp on 2011-05-26 10:02
Forums: PPM | OS: All / Any

It seems like it wouldn't be that hard, each time a new major revision of ActivePerl comes out, to at least run through the the installation instructions found on this page: http://docs.activestate.com/activeperl/5.12/install.html and see whether they work or whether they need to be updated. In particular, this section: http://docs.activestate.com/activeperl/5.12/install.html#upgrade still describes a process where the PPM-Profile module needs to be installed separately. But when an attempt is made to use that module in a version of Perl that contains version 4 of PPM, it just generates an error message. It turns out that the profile functionality is now built in to PPM 4, as described under "ppm profile save" and "ppm profile restore" here: http://docs.activestate.com/activeperl/5.12/bin/ppm.html It would be really nice if the documentation could describe a method that works.

ActiveState Staff
Mon, 2011-07-11 15:45

That section of the guide applies to upgrading from Perl 5.6 and 5.8 versions. In all 5.6 versions, and the vast majority of 5.8 versions, PPM-Profile was not included.

I agree that the doc will need an overhaul soon, as there are getting to be fewer and fewer 5.6 and old 5.8 installations in the wild, but there's a long standing design bug which means "PPM profile" can't extract information if the build getting replaced is 5.12 or newer. Until that bug is resolved, the documentation update bug is blocked.

brycarp | Tue, 2011-07-12 08:25

Yes, the section of the document I was referring to was *about* upgrading from 5.6 or 5.8, but it was *in* the ActivePerl 5.12 document. (You can tell that from the "5.12" in the URL path of the links in my original comment.) What I was saying was that the part of that section that deals with *restoring* the profile should have instructions that are appropriate for (and actually work correctly in) ActivePerl 5.12. If after you read this comment, you still think I was missing something, please reply back again, because I still think my original comment is valid.