On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote: > > Does somebody else care to share their opinion on this? Which of these > > are okay? > > > > - existing mod_perl releases (and potentially other third-party modules) > > won't compile with 2.2.12 > > CORE_PRIVATE may be broken from release to release, it's a necessary > concession to prevent utter stagnation :( The bits are not CORE_PRIVATE. You can find sample Perl code on the web that even tests these bits, though it isn't clear to me if that is a normal practice when using the Perl/mod_include interface. > > > I believe it was a mistake that this particular symbol/this particular > directive is not a part of the mod_includes internals :( Perhaps, though mod_include does have a plug-in interface and we have this non-internal-detail-sounding function called ap_allow_options(). The include option variants could be interesting to such a plug-in. > > > So given we have a .23 mmn bump, perhaps document this in that section. > But the actual behavior of this flag changes significantly and I can't > see how to properly maintain mod_perl, deep internal compatibility. > > The requirement is to fix combinations of option specifications in the main conf file and .htaccess. There's nothing incompatible with mod_perl there. We just can't change the meaning of existing bits.
