Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Using RPMs for Perl/mod_perl

Expand Messages
  • Ken Y. Clark
    The discussion this morning on RedHat s Perl and mod_perl has me wanting to ask about the general consensus on those packages. I develop and maintain a
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The discussion this morning on RedHat's Perl and mod_perl has me
      wanting to ask about the general consensus on those packages. I
      develop and maintain a fair-sized mod_perl app called "CMap"
      (http://www.gmod.org/cmap), and my typical installers are biology
      Ph.D.'s who generally have only a rudimentary knowledge of installing
      software on *nix platforms. I've written a fairly dense INSTALL doc
      that assumes people will be installing everything from source,
      starting with Perl and following through to Apache/mod_perl. However,
      most people seem to start off with the lastest version of RedHat with
      some default installation that includes a number of the needed
      packages (Perl, libgd, MySQL, Apache/mod_perl), so it doesn't seem
      necessary for me to encourage them to remove those and start from
      scratch. At the time I first wrote my INSTALL doc, it seemed most
      Perl-related RPMs from RedHat were broken, so GD.pm and mod_perl and
      Apache::Request, etc., would give me trouble installing unless I
      started out doing "rpm -e --nodeps perl" and relied on no RPMs
      whatsoever.

      I was wondering if the consensus is that RedHat's Perl and mod_perl
      RPMs are good enough now that I should assume my pseudo-technical
      users can rely on them and just worry about installing my code?

      ky
    • Ruslan U. Zakirov
      ... RH perl/mod_perl RPMs are bad. 1) Perl 5.8.0 have bug which appear only with RH and Storable.pm. Fix: upgrade Storable.pm 2) RH use locale containing utf
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Ken Y. Clark wrote:

        >The discussion this morning on RedHat's Perl and mod_perl has me
        >wanting to ask about the general consensus on those packages. I
        >develop and maintain a fair-sized mod_perl app called "CMap"
        >(http://www.gmod.org/cmap), and my typical installers are biology
        >Ph.D.'s who generally have only a rudimentary knowledge of installing
        >software on *nix platforms. I've written a fairly dense INSTALL doc
        >that assumes people will be installing everything from source,
        >starting with Perl and following through to Apache/mod_perl. However,
        >most people seem to start off with the lastest version of RedHat with
        >some default installation that includes a number of the needed
        >packages (Perl, libgd, MySQL, Apache/mod_perl), so it doesn't seem
        >necessary for me to encourage them to remove those and start from
        >scratch. At the time I first wrote my INSTALL doc, it seemed most
        >Perl-related RPMs from RedHat were broken, so GD.pm and mod_perl and
        >Apache::Request, etc., would give me trouble installing unless I
        >started out doing "rpm -e --nodeps perl" and relied on no RPMs
        >whatsoever.
        >
        >I was wondering if the consensus is that RedHat's Perl and mod_perl
        >RPMs are good enough now that I should assume my pseudo-technical
        >users can rely on them and just worry about installing my code?
        >
        >ky
        >
        >
        RH perl/mod_perl RPMs are bad.
        1) Perl 5.8.0 have bug which appear only with RH and Storable.pm. Fix:
        upgrade Storable.pm
        2) RH use locale containing utf so perl 5.8.0 by default use utf
        encoding for IO. Fix: change LANG to something non-UTF.
        3) RH use mod_perl2 which is unstable and choosed really
        unstable(1.99_7) version. Issues: POST requests truncation. Fix: install
        1.99_10
        4) And may be other issues... may be I forgot something which I've
        allready fixed in any way.


        --
        Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
        Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
      • Perrin Harkins
        ... I agree for the most part, but this hasn t always been the case. In previous versions of Red Hat, I used the system Perl. The locale issues in this
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 13:43, Ruslan U. Zakirov wrote:
          > RH perl/mod_perl RPMs are bad.
          > 1) Perl 5.8.0 have bug which appear only with RH and Storable.pm. Fix:
          > upgrade Storable.pm
          > 2) RH use locale containing utf so perl 5.8.0 by default use utf
          > encoding for IO. Fix: change LANG to something non-UTF.
          > 3) RH use mod_perl2 which is unstable and choosed really
          > unstable(1.99_7) version. Issues: POST requests truncation. Fix: install
          > 1.99_10
          > 4) And may be other issues... may be I forgot something which I've
          > allready fixed in any way.

          I agree for the most part, but this hasn't always been the case. In
          previous versions of Red Hat, I used the system Perl. The locale issues
          in this release, and the very old version of mp2 make it tricky.

          If you get people to fix the locale, you may be okay with the mp2 they
          provide. It has known bugs, but not all apps will have problems. In
          general, I think using the system Perl but compiling your own mod_perl
          and apache is a reasonable compromise.

          Of course this just adds to the number of configurations you are
          supporting...

          - Perrin

          --
          Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
          Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.