Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [21-11-2004 18:24]: > Radoslaw Zielinski wrote: >> Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [21-11-2004 17:41]: >>> Radoslaw Zielinski wrote: >>>> So, as it's a p5p problem, I'll just switch to annoying them with >>>> perlbug. >>> You mean you want to suggest to make it a core feature of perl? >> I'm not sure how do you define a "core feature"... I want to show >> a problem (breaking the binary compatibility) and suggest a solution. > To have the functionality of Dynaloader.a be built-in in libperl.(so|a)
Then yes. Since it's in /usr/bin/perl anyway, it's not a big revolution. [...] >> But what I was aksking: what are the other reasons you mentioned for >> rebuilding mod_perl after perl upgrade? > You mean unrelated to the Dynaloader issue? Usually the main reason is > that a new perl might be slightly built slightly different. I'm not [...] Ah, then fine. Build options are under my control; I thought that maybe mod_perl is using some weird perl features, not covered by the backward compatibility policy. [...] >> But I also want to support hand-made builds (people may not like the way >> we distribute apache and mod_perl) and (maybe) propietary applications >> embedding perl, not only my extra-tuned RPMs. > and? And I need a complex solution, so I patched that Makefile.SH. [...] Bug #32539 it is. -- Radosław Zieliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ GPG key: http://radek.karnet.pl/ ]
pgpW9C32eXFwA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
