That's not entirely true. Debian Sarge (stable) and Ubuntu Hoary both
include packages for Apache 1.3.33 and Apache2 (2.0.54?). Sarge has a
mod_perl2 package but it's based on a late 2.0RC, though it is
post-rename, IIRC.
Actually, the Debian Stable aka Sarge has 1.999.21-1 which is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff wrote:
That's not entirely true. Debian Sarge (stable) and Ubuntu Hoary both
include packages for Apache 1.3.33 and Apache2 (2.0.54?). Sarge has a
mod_perl2 package but it's based on a late 2.0RC, though it is
post-rename, IIRC.
Hi,
I don't think this changes your situation any. CGI is not really fast
enough to use, so you still need mod_perl or FastCGI. Because the
current crop of linux distros came out before mod_perl 2 but couldn't
use mod_perl 1 (since they are using apache 2), they have poor mod_perl
support in
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:07 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
and tentatively plan to use the Debian 3.1 stable apache-perl package (Apache
1.33 and mod_perl 1.29).
That sounds like a good plan. There may still be issues with their
apache compile, but it's definitely better than using a
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 22:50 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
If I understand it correctly, Catalyst can run under Perl/CGI, Apache/
mod_perl
CGI emulation layers (Apache::Registry, FastCGI?, others?), Apache/ mod_perl,
Apache2/ mod_perl2 CGI emulation layers (?), and Apache2/ mod_perl2. It's
]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:46 AM
To: David Christensen
Cc: modperl@perl.apache.org
Subject: RE: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 22:50 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
If I understand it correctly, Catalyst can run under Perl/CGI, Apache/
mod_perl
CGI
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:51:35 -0700
Justin Luster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use Rackspace for my Unix hosting and support. They install Red Hat
Enterprise Linux 3 and 4 that both have beta versions of Mod_Perl
installed (ModPerl 1.99_16). Are these not recommended for use on a
production
Perrin Harkins wrote:
I don't think this changes your situation any. CGI is not really
fast enough to use, so you still need mod_perl or FastCGI. Because
the current crop of linux distros came out before mod_perl 2 but
couldn't use mod_perl 1 (since they are using apache 2), they have
poor
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Perrin Harkins wrote:
enough to use, so you still need mod_perl or FastCGI. Because the
current crop of linux distros came out before mod_perl 2 but couldn't
use mod_perl 1 (since they are using apache 2), they have poor mod_perl
That's not entirely true. Debian Sarge
Perrin Harkins wrote:
I hear you, but I think anyone who is building a serious web app is
better off compiling the important parts (apache, perl, mod_perl)
themselves. The options that the packagers choose are intended to
meet the needs of the largest cross-section of users, not to work
well
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 07:12 +0100, Jeff wrote:
Debian provide a tested, stable environment, usually with added security
factor. We rolled our own once to solve the libc6 2.7 memory bugs that
hit Perl, to be bitten by intermittent and obscure interaction bugs
(MySQL/Perl mid-query dropping db
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 15:22 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
My goal is to be able to write Apache2/ mod_perl2/ MySQL applications and then
sell and/or give them away with the instructions it works under *nix
distribution X version Y.Z with packages A, B, C installed.
If you want to sell it,
David Christensen said:
Also, I prefer using binary packages for a given *nix
distribution
-- it's not my goal to develop Apache2 and/or mod_perl2, I want to *use*
them to
build web applications.
I hear you, but I think anyone who is building a serious web app is better
off compiling the
Perrin Harkins wrote:
I hear you, but I think anyone who is building a serious web app is
better off compiling the important parts (apache, perl, mod_perl)
themselves. The options that the packagers choose are intended to
meet the needs of the largest cross-section of users, not to work
well
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
What version of mp2 comes with Sarge packages ?
1.9922 or higher I hope.
Thanks for your reply. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache showpkg libapache2-mod-perl2 | head -n 3
Package: libapache2-mod-perl2
Versions:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache showpkg libapache2-mod-perl2 | head -n 3
Package: libapache2-mod-perl2
Versions:
1.999.21-1(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stable_
main_binary-i386_Packages)(/var/lib/dpkg/status)
EW!
I'd recompile and update... using the
Carl Johnstone wrote:
Sounds like a good idea, and if we point people in the right
direction to get updated versions/backports for their distro that
might help with the rest.
As a Debian user I'd like to move to mod_perl2 proper, however I
don't want to have to compile it for myself. So I've
David Christensen wrote:
Carl Johnstone wrote:
option of using the version in Sarge, and figuring our where I differ
What version of mp2 comes with Sarge packages ?
1.9922 or higher I hope.
When I try to port my Eagle book modules to mod_perl2, I trip over the very
first step:
[EMAIL
Carl Johnstone wrote:
I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
want to maintain my own perl/mod_perl build tree - I want my
Anton van Straaten wrote:
Carl Johnstone wrote:
I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
want to maintain my own perl/mod_perl
On Thursday 01 September 2005 04:26 pm, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
If people want to start emailing in what has what, I'll at least maintain
the list until we figure out how best to use it and where to put it.
Mandrake/Mandriva 2005LE (the last release) has perl 5.8.6, httpd 2.0.54,
mod_perl
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Anton van Straaten wrote:
Carl Johnstone wrote:
I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
want to
Anton van Straaten wrote:
Carl Johnstone wrote:
I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
want to maintain my own
I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
want to maintain my own perl/mod_perl build tree - I want my distro to
do the right
24 matches
Mail list logo
