On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:11:24 -0400
Kurt Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reese,Richard Stephen wrote:
>
> >Thank you for the information, it just stinks that Redhat would use
> >something that old in their latest OS offering because I'd rather not
> >manually build it
> >
> >
> It's a long-standing problem. This history recently posted to the
> CentOS mailing list:
>
> "I think you are missing the point that there was one
> version of mod_perl 1.x shipped as an update to RH7.3
> that was actually usable. It was broken again in RH8
> and subsequent versions including went into RHEL 3 and 4.
> I think the 2.x version may finally be usable again in FC5
> but I haven't really done stress testing."
>
>
> Considering that this is a problem that has been going on for years,
> even fixed and then broken again, I have to conclude that keeping
> mod_perl up to standard just falls too low on the priority list for
> Red Hat. Their conclusion must be that they don't have enough
> customers to warrant more resources. It may be a sound business
> decision on their part, however much it annoys us.
I would bet it's more "here is what looks like the latest stable
version right now, package it up and put it into RHEL". Instead of
either:
1) Having an active mod_perl person build the RPMs for them
2) Asking the mod_perl community "is this a good version for us
to include"?
Having been so long ago it's difficult to remember exact time
lines, but I seem to remember a situation where if RH had just
waited about 48 hours they would have had a "good" version rather
than the broken one they did include.
I do understand that they can't wait for every project to get into
a good spot before releasing as there won't ever be a single point in
time when everyone is happy with things. But it would be nice for
them to either ask about project status and give a "to be included in
RHEL 5.0 you need to be stable by July 14th".
Is the mod_perl RPM maintainer for Fedora even on this list?
---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------
