Re: libperl.so vs mod_perl.so
I didn't know about that script :) I'm glad to know it's out there. Using
the ports *would* make life much easier.
Thanks!
-- Ryan
- Original Message -
From: Doug Silver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ryan Parr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: mod_perl Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 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 about loadable modules vs compiled said that the
loadable route costs during startup, but beyond that it's nearly a
push. Using the ports system makes upgrading Apache and all the other
system software much easier than the other route. But, everyone does
things differently, so YMMV!
~~
Doug Silver
Network Manager
Urchin Corporation http://www.urchin.com
~~
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Ryan Parr wrote:
As a fellow FreeBSD user (4.5) I recommend building Apache and mod_perl
from
source. The ports version builds against the default Perl version
(5.005),
even if you upgrade. Therefore, that's all you get in your mod_perl.
Also,
it's a good idea to compile mod_perl into Apache, at least, that's what
everyone on this list seems to say... To get the same layout as with the
port install configure apache
--with-layout=FreeBSD
-- Ryan
- Original 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 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 file called
libperl.so.
That's the one!
How can I quickly and easily test if mod_perl is inded installed
Read the Guide some more...
http://perl.apache.org/guide
... and check the error_log.
73,
Ged.
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 doesn't exist. There is a an entry for libperl.so and there is a file called libperl.so. That's the one! How can I quickly and easily test if mod_perl is inded installed Read the Guide some more... http://perl.apache.org/guide ... and check the error_log. 73, Ged.
Re: libperl.so vs mod_perl.so
As a fellow FreeBSD user (4.5) I recommend building Apache and mod_perl from source. The ports version builds against the default Perl version (5.005), even if you upgrade. Therefore, that's all you get in your mod_perl. Also, it's a good idea to compile mod_perl into Apache, at least, that's what everyone on this list seems to say... To get the same layout as with the port install configure apache --with-layout=FreeBSD -- Ryan - Original 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 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 file called libperl.so. That's the one! How can I quickly and easily test if mod_perl is inded installed Read the Guide some more... http://perl.apache.org/guide ... and check the error_log. 73, Ged.
Re: libperl.so vs 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 PHP/4.1.0 mod_ssl/2.8.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6a configured -- resuming normal operations ~~ Doug Silver Network Manager Urchin Corporation http://www.urchin.com ~~ On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Mike Loiterman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Using FreeBSD 4.4 STABLE, apache-1.13.22_4, mod_perl-1.26 I had apache installed via its port, but I needed to use mod_perl. So, it was my understanding that one can cd /usr/ports/mod_perl and do a make make install to install mod_perl into an exsisting apache configuration without having to recompile. This seems to have worked since I am seeing an entry in http.conf that says AddModule mod_perl.c but there is no entry for LoadModule /libexec/apache/mod_perl.so and of course there is no file in linexec/apache/mod_perl.so so I'm a bit confused. There is a an entry for libperl.so and there is a file called libperl.so. It isn't clear to me from the documentation at http://perl.apache.org/guide/install.html#libperl_so_and_libperl_a how this relates to mod_perl.so. Are these files interchangable? How can I quickly and easily test if mod_perl is inded installed and functioning correctly. Mike Loiterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key 0xD1B9D18E -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 7.0.4 Comment: Message digitally signed by Mike Loiterman iQA/AwUBPLYDBmjZbUnRudGOEQK2pgCgw2Wjlls7pSQbVpwOn5PuUX3mSR0AoNx5 b1EBAV4smZy90cKCMg5IEId+ =onnW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
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 about loadable modules vs compiled said that the
loadable route costs during startup, but beyond that it's nearly a
push. Using the ports system makes upgrading Apache and all the other
system software much easier than the other route. But, everyone does
things differently, so YMMV!
~~
Doug Silver
Network Manager
Urchin Corporation http://www.urchin.com
~~
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Ryan Parr wrote:
As a fellow FreeBSD user (4.5) I recommend building Apache and mod_perl from
source. The ports version builds against the default Perl version (5.005),
even if you upgrade. Therefore, that's all you get in your mod_perl. Also,
it's a good idea to compile mod_perl into Apache, at least, that's what
everyone on this list seems to say... To get the same layout as with the
port install configure apache
--with-layout=FreeBSD
-- Ryan
- Original 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 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 file called
libperl.so.
That's the one!
How can I quickly and easily test if mod_perl is inded installed
Read the Guide some more...
http://perl.apache.org/guide
... and check the error_log.
73,
Ged.
