perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Reese,Richard Stephen" <>
Subject RE: Apache::Server not included in mod_perl-1.99_16-4
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:36:08 GMT
I put in a request to have it looked at as a bug though once again I'm
not sure if this is the corect procedure for getting redhat to fix an
issue in a enterprise product.

Thanks for the information. I'll just have to wait to migrate. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Wiles [] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Apache::Server not included in mod_perl-1.99_16-4

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:11:24 -0400
Kurt Hansen <> wrote:

> Reese,Richard Stephen wrote:
> >Thank you for the information, it just stinks that Redhat would use 
> >something that old in their latest OS offering because I'd rather not

> >manually build it
> >  
> >
> It's a long-standing problem. This history recently posted to the 
> CentOS mailing list:
> "I think you are missing the point that there was one version of 
> mod_perl 1.x shipped as an update to RH7.3 that was actually usable. 
> It was broken again in RH8 and subsequent versions including went into

> RHEL 3 and 4.
> I think the 2.x version may finally be usable again in FC5 but I 
> haven't really done stress testing."
> Considering that this is a problem that has been going on for years, 
> even fixed and then broken again, I have to conclude that keeping 
> mod_perl up to standard just falls too low on the priority list for 
> Red Hat. Their conclusion must be that they don't have enough 
> customers to warrant more resources. It may be a sound business 
> decision on their part, however much it annoys us.

  I would bet it's more "here is what looks like the latest stable
  version right now, package it up and put it into RHEL".  Instead of

   1) Having an active mod_perl person build the RPMs for them 

   2) Asking the mod_perl community "is this a good version for us
      to include"?  

  Having been so long ago it's difficult to remember exact time
  lines, but I seem to remember a situation where if RH had just
  waited about 48 hours they would have had a "good" version rather
  than the broken one they did include. 

  I do understand that they can't wait for every project to get into
  a good spot before releasing as there won't ever be a single point in
  time when everyone is happy with things.  But it would be nice for
  them to either ask about project status and give a "to be included in
  RHEL 5.0 you need to be stable by July 14th". 

  Is the mod_perl RPM maintainer for Fedora even on this list? 

   Frank Wiles <>

View raw message