Stas Bekman wrote:
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Hi,
I have tried to install it, using:
# perl Makefile.pl
# make
After this step, it gave the following error:
modperl_filter.c: In function `modperl_brigade_dump':
modperl_filter.c:1253: internal error: Illegal instruction
Please submit a full bug report,
Stas Bekman wrote:
Tom Williams wrote:
[...]
Ok, with this patch applied, I now get this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mod_perl-2.0.0-RC6]$ perl Makefile.PL
MP_APXS=/usr/local/apache-2.0.54/bin/apxs
Reading Makefile.PL args from @ARGV
MP_APXS = /usr/local/apache-2.0.54/bin/apxs
mod_perl/1.999_021 installa
Tom Williams wrote:
[...]
Ok, with this patch applied, I now get this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mod_perl-2.0.0-RC6]$ perl Makefile.PL
MP_APXS=/usr/local/apache-2.0.54/bin/apxs
Reading Makefile.PL args from @ARGV
MP_APXS = /usr/local/apache-2.0.54/bin/apxs
mod_perl/1.999_021 installation detected... no
Stas Bekman wrote:
Tom, please try with this patch:
Index: Makefile.PL
===
--- Makefile.PL (revision 168093)
+++ Makefile.PL (working copy)
@@ -126,8 +126,9 @@
set_modperl_version();
if ($old_modperl_version) {
-$old_
Tom Williams wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Changes since RC5:
(snip)
improve the diagnostics when detecting mp2 < 1.999022, tell the user
which files and/or dirs need to be removed [Stas]
I'm trying to install mod_perl 2.0.0-RC6 on a RedHat 9 based Linux
system that is currently running Apache 2.0.
Stas Bekman wrote:
Changes since RC5:
(snip)
improve the diagnostics when detecting mp2 < 1.999022, tell the user
which files and/or dirs need to be removed [Stas]
I'm trying to install mod_perl 2.0.0-RC6 on a RedHat 9 based Linux system that
is currently running Apache 2.0.52/mod_perl 2.0.0-RC4
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Steve Hay wrote:
Markus Wichitill wrote:
[ .. ]
I guess you two didn't remove the "if (!size)" check like I did?
Shit. How dumb am I?
You're absolutely right -- you have to remove the size
check as well in order for Randy's fix to even be reached!
With this
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Steve Hay wrote:
> Markus Wichitill wrote:
[ .. ]
> >
> >I guess you two didn't remove the "if (!size)" check like I did?
> >
> Shit. How dumb am I?
>
> You're absolutely right -- you have to remove the size
> check as well in order for Randy's fix to even be reached!
> With t
Markus Wichitill wrote:
>Randy Kobes wrote:
>
>
>>>Randy, if you spot locations in docs and tests that do a comparison with
>>>these two constants, which we will now have right, please adjust those.
>>>Thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>Thanks, Stas. I've done that, but unfortunately, like Steve,
>>I'm
Randy Kobes wrote:
Randy, if you spot locations in docs and tests that do a comparison with
these two constants, which we will now have right, please adjust those.
Thank you!
Thanks, Stas. I've done that, but unfortunately, like Steve,
I'm also finding these 2 tests still have problems :( I'll
keep
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
> [...]
> > Does the following fix this?
> >
> > ===
> > Index: xs/APR/Status/APR__Status.h
> > ===
> > --- xs
Randy Kobes wrote:
[...]
Does the following fix this?
===
Index: xs/APR/Status/APR__Status.h
===
--- xs/APR/Status/APR__Status.h (revision 168337)
+++ xs/APR/Status/APR__S
Randy Kobes wrote:
>On Thu, 5 May 2005, Steve Hay wrote:
>
>
>
>>Randy Kobes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 5 May 2005, Markus Wichitill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>[ ... ]
>
>
The actual error code returned by apr_file_open is 720002.
>>>Does the following fix this?
>>>
>>>
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Steve Hay wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 5 May 2005, Markus Wichitill wrote:
[ ... ]
> >>The actual error code returned by apr_file_open is 720002.
> >
> >Does the following fix this?
> >
> No. I was just in the process of trying the same thing
> myself, but it doesn
Steve Hay wrote:
I've removed the size code, too, and the problem is that after the exception
is thrown, neither of the tests in RegistryCooker::read_script apply:
if (ref $@ eq 'APR::Error') {
return Apache2::Const::FORBIDDEN if $@ == APR::Const::EACCES;
return Apache2
Randy Kobes wrote:
>On Thu, 5 May 2005, Markus Wichitill wrote:
>
>
>
>>Steve Hay wrote:
>>
>>
how can we test if the filehandle is valid then? may be we should skip
that bit altogether? Steve, does it work if you comment out the whole
if (!size) { ... }
block?
>>>
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Markus Wichitill wrote:
> Steve Hay wrote:
> >>how can we test if the filehandle is valid then? may be we should skip
> >>that bit altogether? Steve, does it work if you comment out the whole
> >>
> >> if (!size) { ... }
> >>
> >>block?
> >
> > No, it doesn't :(
>
> I've remov
Steve Hay wrote:
how can we test if the filehandle is valid then? may be we should skip
that bit altogether? Steve, does it work if you comment out the whole
if (!size) { ... }
block?
No, it doesn't :(
I've removed the size code, too, and the problem is that after the exception
is thrown, neith
Steve Hay wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Markus Wichitill wrote:
Steve Hay wrote:
Almost all OK on Win32 (Apache 2.0.54 and a recent bleadperl). Main
tests are all successful, but ModPerl-Registry tests failed 404.t test
1 and redirect.t test 2.
Same here (WinXP, 2.0.54, 5.8.6). modperl_
Stas Bekman wrote:
>Markus Wichitill wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Hay wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Almost all OK on Win32 (Apache 2.0.54 and a recent bleadperl). Main
>>>tests are all successful, but ModPerl-Registry tests failed 404.t test
>>>1 and redirect.t test 2.
>>>
>>>
>>Same here (WinXP, 2.0.54
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Hi,
I have tried to install it, using:
# perl Makefile.pl
# make
After this step, it gave the following error:
modperl_filter.c: In function `modperl_brigade_dump':
modperl_filter.c:1253: internal error: Illegal instruction
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed
Markus Wichitill wrote:
Steve Hay wrote:
Almost all OK on Win32 (Apache 2.0.54 and a recent bleadperl). Main
tests are all successful, but ModPerl-Registry tests failed 404.t test
1 and redirect.t test 2.
Same here (WinXP, 2.0.54, 5.8.6). modperl_slurp_filename doesn't raise a
ENOENT exception
Steve Hay wrote:
Almost all OK on Win32 (Apache 2.0.54 and a recent bleadperl). Main
tests are all successful, but ModPerl-Registry tests failed 404.t test 1
and redirect.t test 2.
Same here (WinXP, 2.0.54, 5.8.6). modperl_slurp_filename doesn't raise a
ENOENT exception when it should. The
Stas Bekman wrote:
>The uploaded file
>
> mod_perl-2.0.0-RC6.tar.gz
>
>has entered CPAN
>
Almost all OK on Win32 (Apache 2.0.54 and a recent bleadperl). Main
tests are all successful, but ModPerl-Registry tests failed 404.t test 1
and redirect.t test 2.
The 404.t test gives the following v
uld be the problem?
Thank you.
Teddy
- Original Message -
From: "Stas Bekman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "mod_perl Mailing List" ; "announce"
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] mod_perl 2.0.0-RC6
>
> #* If everything goes
#* If everything goes well with this release it'll probably be the last RC
and a week or so from now, we will get the 2.0.0 out. So this is your last
chance to affect the new API, since after 2.0.0 release backwards
incompatible API changes will not happen. Thank you for your testing and
suppor
26 matches
Mail list logo
