On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:01:33PM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote: > Ged Haywood wrote: > >Hi there, > > > >On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Keith G. Murphy wrote: > > > > > >>do you mean that the problems with the loadable module overall are > >>so well-known that no one in his right mind should ever use it? > > > > > >It's not as bad as that. Significant improvements have been made in > >the reliability of mod_perl as DSO and nowadays there is much less > >discussion about it on this list. > > Are you sure it's not because 'most everyone has silently given up on it? > > >There are still one or two dusty > >corners but in general thesedays I'd say try it. > > I had not expected Debian stable to be one of the dusty corners. But I > did find, upon investigating the bug reports, that there were *very* old > reports about memory leaks, etc., with libapache-mod-perl. > > My own bug report is now 47 days old, without apparent followup.
That's because I'm having an attack of real life. I haven't had time to look at my Debian bug reports in a month or so now. I don't know why the DSO is leaking in a case when the static module isn't, but it should be fixable; I just need to find five or six hours to sit down with it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
