On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 16:37, Dennis G. Allard wrote: > Hmmm. No one has actually answered the question, although I am getting > all kinds of advice... (-; ...
Thomas Klausner said that mod_perl 2 only runs on apache 2 and mod_perl 1 only runs on apache 1. He is correct. Red Hat gave you an early version of mod_perl 2 because they gave you apache 2. > I'll take that to mean 'yes', I do have mod_perl 2.0 (although, per my > previous post of my `strings /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_perl.so` output, > my version is (I guess) 1.99_05-dev, which, you have to admit, does not > look like '2.0'. The 2.x branch has not reached an official release yet. It is still basically considered beta. When it is officially released, it will be 2.0. > Please note, though, one of my goals in life is to rely on my software > providers to do the work of providing me with a stable, tested, > updatable OS and associated tools. If I download 'out of band' updates, > then I can no longer rely on Red Hat's network update tool, for example. If you want to use bleeding edge software, you do have to keep up. > My heuristic is that I intentionally stay behind the curve. In that case, you should use apache 1 and mod_perl 1. > My current need for mod_perl 2.0 is not critical, so I will give it > another year or so before I dig in and make the (substantial) effort of > coverting entirely to it. Most of us find that it's pretty easy to convert to mod_perl 1, provided you have clean Perl code to begin with. > Bummer, I don't have perl-blead Bleedperl (aka perl-blead) is the name for the unreleased development version of Perl. You don't need it. - Perrin
