11, 2002 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: libperl.so vs mod_perl.so
Ryan -
I upgraded to perl 5.6 and when I built mod_perl it used the right one, I
would guess that it would only build it against 5.0 if you didn't run the
`use.perl {port,system}` script that comes with perl 5.6.
The last time I read
Hi there,
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
There's really no need for all this... :)
but there is no entry for LoadModule /libexec/apache/mod_perl.so
That's because mod_perl.so doesn't exist.
There is a an entry for libperl.so and there is a
, April 11, 2002 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: libperl.so vs mod_perl.so
Hi there,
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
There's really no need for all this... :)
but there is no entry for LoadModule /libexec/apache/mod_perl.so
That's because mod_perl.so
Hi Mike -
I have the same setup. You should see something like this:
$ egrep -i perl httpd.conf
LoadModule perl_modulelibexec/apache/libperl.so
AddModule mod_perl.c
# apachectl graceful
# tail /www/logs/error.log
[Thu Apr 11 14:53:31 2002] [notice] Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26
Message -
From: Ged Haywood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Loiterman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: mod_perl Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: libperl.so vs mod_perl.so
Hi there,
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
