-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.
>
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
PRE
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 pre-rel
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 t
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 (s
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
> p
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
> produc
Justin Luster 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 server?
We do not recommand anything less then 1.9922 aka
]
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_p
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
Perrin Harkins wrote:>?
> If you want to sell it, and don't want to spend all your time
> debugging vendor oddities, I suggest you target popular versions of
> RHEL and Fedora Core and build your own RPMs for perl, mod_perl,
> apache, and your application.
> People with ISPs where they can't instal
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 connections etc).
> We persevered
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
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 d
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 for
I wrote:
>> 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)
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> EW!
> I'd recompile and update... using the unsupported API is going to drive y
[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 unsupport
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:
1.999.21-1(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.d
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
>
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 t
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 PRO
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
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 o
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
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
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
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 distr
> 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 ri
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Some advocacy ideas:
I think that there are a few groups we should target:
- The programmers/net admins that are already using mod_perl, but older
versions (Macromedia is using Apache 1.3 and mod_perl 1)
- the programmers that already know perl but t
It's in backports.org's incoming directory, as of the 16th. Let's hope they
push that out soon (I don't think they've released any backports for Sarge
yet). They've also got an updated libapreq2.
http://www.backports.org/incoming/
On Sunday 28 August 2005 06:48 am, Jeff wrote:
> >> It is no
It's in backports.org's incoming directory, as of the 16th. Let's hope they
push that out soon (I don't think they've released any backports for Sarge
yet). They've also got an updated libapreq2.
http://www.backports.org/incoming/
On Sunday 28 August 2005 06:48 am, Jeff wrote:
> >> It is not
It is not even available on Testing and Unstable :(
Sure it is. Unstable has 2.0.1.
You're right - don't know how I missed that! since May!
Unfortunately I am not in a position to upgrade our servers to unstable,
and it has i386 dependencies on libc6 >= 2.3.5-1, perl >= 5.8.7 etc etc
etc ad
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Jeff wrote:
It is not even available on Testing and Unstable :(
Sure it is. Unstable has 2.0.1.
-dave
/*===
VegGuide.Orgwww.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg. My book blog
==
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Adam> The people that are actually using mod_perl to any real degree
Adam> probably don't have it in their servers headers (as you said
Adam> before Perrin).
Harmful, in that when a PHB reads "Perl is dead, PHP roxors!" as
stated by otherwise knowlegable sources, we
RHEL/Centos 4 are still sitting on 1.99_16, which probably isn't helping
matters.
Debian stable: Package libapache2-mod-perl2 1.999.21-1
Which is a version BEFORE the big namespace change, and so basically not
usable.
Unfortunately Debian's three year release cycle, and 'never ever change
I'm using apache 1.3.33 and mod_perl 1.29.
I would have went apache 2 and mp 2 but I saw the mod_perl in beta
warning and wasn't sure if it was a good idea to use it in a production
environment.
Even if I had wanted to our host uses apache 1.3.33 and mod_perl 1.29 as
the default set up. On my O
we are talking about advocacy, so why not promoting mod_perl in any way if
it is possible and doesn't hurt anyone?
I also think that it would be a good idea to set an HTTP header by default
which announces mod_perl.
The winners are those who created bad but simple programs, simple
programming lang
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Frank Wiles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 19:33 PM
Subject: Re: survey
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 09:41 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
> > Perrin, if you need some help or need someone to take it over,
> > I
From: "Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:47 -0400, Adam Prime x443 wrote:
> > PHP uses: X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
> >
> > To effectively bypass the front end server problem.
>
> We decided not to do that, since it's intrusive.
>
PHP users can decide if that HTTP hea
On 26 Aug 2005 11:43:17 -0700
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> Perhaps if mod_perl announced itself by default, but a simple
> directive turned it off? Then at least the statistics for it would be
> in the same meaningless camp as mod_php. :)
I think that's a reasonable idea
> "Adam" == Adam Prime x443 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Either way though, I think these numbers are useless for the
Adam> most part. I would guess that the vast majority of the sites
Adam> that have mod_perl or mod_php in their headers are mass hosting
Adam> providers that are running
MAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:56 PM
To: Adam Prime x443
Cc: modperl@perl.apache.org
Subject: RE: survey
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:47 -0400, Adam Prime x443 wrote:
> PHP uses: X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
>
> To effectively bypass the front end server problem.
We decid
Quoting Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
> > Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > > > "Christopher H. L
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:47 -0400, Adam Prime x443 wrote:
> PHP uses: X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
>
> To effectively bypass the front end server problem.
We decided not to do that, since it's intrusive.
What I was asking about is whether anyone checked to see if the numbers
for other things seem t
PHP uses: X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
To effectively bypass the front end server problem.
Adam
-Original Message-
From: Perrin Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:25 PM
To: Frank Wiles
Cc: modperl@perl.apache.org
Subject: Re: survey
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:33:36 -0400
Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have not had time to work on it. What it still needs is
> incorporation of a Win32 success story that I have in bits and pieces
> in several e- mails. It's not a simple job to turn it into something
> coherent. If
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 09:41 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
> Perrin, if you need some help or need someone to take it over,
> I've got some time this weekend I could work on it. Let me know.
The document has been in the mod_perl docs subversion repository for a
while now, here:
http://svn.apache.o
Quoting Fred Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Frank Wiles wrote:
>
> > We tried last year to get a mod_perl advocacy movement going,
> but
> > not to many people were interested in helping with it.
>
> There is a mailing list just for the advocacy movement here:
>
> http://perl.apache.org/mai
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 09:25 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
> 2) More and more sites moving to having light front-end Apache's
> that don't have mod_perl, but reverse proxy to backends that
> do.
There you go. None of the sites that I know run mod_perl, including my
own, have it in their f
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:54 -0500, Tony Clayton wrote:
> I've raised a bug on the Centos site for upgrading to mod_perl 2.0.1:
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1001
Doesn't Centos just track RHEL? I didn't think they offered any
additional packages. I believe it's Red Hat who would need to
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:32 -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised that
> "mod_perl 2 is finished?".
Where do you see these? It was announced on Slashdot, which is about as
good as it gets for reaching actual programmers.
Frank Wiles wrote:
> We tried last year to get a mod_perl advocacy movement going, but
> not to many people were interested in helping with it.
There is a mailing list just for the advocacy movement here:
http://perl.apache.org/maillist/advocacy.html
The last post was in May, right before
Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
> Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > > "Christopher H. Laco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Part of it may
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised that
"mod_perl 2 is finished?".
-=Chris
Oh yeah. Last night I installed MP2 on a fresh FreeBSD5 install using
ports that used:
http://www.apache.org/dist/perl/mod_perl-2.0.1.tar.gz
This is sti
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:49:52 +0300
"Octavian Rasnita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think, why the number of hosts which use mod_perl is
> decreasing continuously as the following survey shows?
>
> http://perl.apache.org/outstanding/stats/netcraft.html
We had a discussion about this
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > "Christopher H. Laco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised
> > > t
Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> "Christopher H. Laco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised
> > that "mod_perl 2 is finished?".
>
> That could be as well. We should really get our 2.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
"Christopher H. Laco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised
> that "mod_perl 2 is finished?".
That could be as well. We should really get our 2.0 press release
out.
Perrin, if you need some hel
Frank Wiles wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:49:52 +0300
"Octavian Rasnita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do you think, why the number of hosts which use mod_perl is
decreasing continuously as the following survey shows?
http://perl.apache.org/outstanding/stats/netcraft.html
We had a disc
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> What do you think, why the number of hosts which use mod_perl is decreasing
> continuously as the following survey shows?
>
> http://perl.apache.org/outstanding/stats/netcraft.html
Just a guess, but I think it might be related to the fact that some
servers moved to Apach
60 matches
Mail list logo
