You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org by Nick Tonkin <ni...@rlnt.net> on 2001/08/17 06:20:35 UTC
mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re: Problems
installing libapreq)
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:38:56 -0700 Ged Haywood wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Nick Tonkin wrote:
>
> > > Somehow they are not getting setup right.
> >
> > Yeah, no kidding, Joe.
>
> He's only trying to help. :)
Yes, you're right. Please accept my apology to you, Joe, for my
gracelessness.
However, this does bring up an issue I'd like to throw out there. I've
been using mod_perl for more than three years. I'm a pretty experienced
and fairly proficient developer in Perl. I have administered at least a
dozen boxes running FreeBSD or Linux or Solaris, in the sense that I've
kept them going and have installed a typical Perl-apache-mod_perl-RDBMS
etc. setup on them. I'm _not_ a sysadmin, but I've always managed to run
everything I needed to on my boxes, because for the most part, everything
in the Open Source world works so damn well.
However, I've installed mod_perl a lot of times, and I have to say that
the majority of the times there has been some glitch during the
installation that has stumped me and I've had to resort to the list for
help. I've also seen over the years that a good portion of the traffic on
this list has been requests for help with the install.
Now many of you who are most proficient in the use of mod_perl and
programming in general are also the ones who wind up knowing the answers
to the install-related questions. For whatever reason you have acquired
sysadmin skills as well as software development skills. Many others of us,
though, don't have much experience at all in system admin, nor do we know
much about system libraries and dependencies and whatnot. In my case at
least, I don't care to become expert at that stuff; I've never programmed
C and I don't intend to learn Java. I'm just a self-taught Perl hacker and
happy with it.
So what I mean to say is, firstly, that I think that it's unfortunate that
the level of complexity of getting mod_perl going is so high, and
maybe some more work could be directed in the ease-of-use area. I realize,
of course that it takes at least two to tango, and to be fair there are
many other components of a comprehensive web application platform that
also have work together with each other and mod_perl. I'm sure in my
current case it's something to do with how FreeBSD installed Perl, or some
such. But that's my whole point. I don't think it should be a prerequisite
that you be able to debug your whole system configuration in order to get
mod_perl working. It just creates a barrier, one which I've always been
determined to overcome, but which I am sure has turned many other
would-be mod_perlers away.
Secondly, and relatedly, for those of you who are generous enough to try
to help when there's some glitch, please remember that there are some of
us who almost never meddle with this stuff. I've noticed that often the
answers tend to assume a great deal of knowledge of the guts of make and
compiling and whatnot.
Of course, mod_perl rules, Doug rules too, and every time I've needed help
it has eventually come, as I'm sure it will this time.
End of speech :)
nick
( In the absence of any better ideas at this time, I'm gonna nuke
/usr/local/lib/perl5 completely and see what happens if I start over
again. )
~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Tonkin
Re: mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re:
Problems installing libapreq)
Posted by Robert Landrum <rl...@capitoladvantage.com>.
At 9:20 PM -0700 8/16/01, Nick Tonkin wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:38:56 -0700 Ged Haywood wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Nick Tonkin wrote:
>>
>> > > Somehow they are not getting setup right.
>> >
>> > Yeah, no kidding, Joe.
>>
>
> > He's only trying to help. :)
>
>[snip]
>So what I mean to say is, firstly, that I think that it's unfortunate that
>the level of complexity of getting mod_perl going is so high, and
>maybe some more work could be directed in the ease-of-use area. I realize,
>of course that it takes at least two to tango, and to be fair there are
>many other components of a comprehensive web application platform that
>also have work together with each other and mod_perl. I'm sure in my
>current case it's something to do with how FreeBSD installed Perl, or some
>such. But that's my whole point. I don't think it should be a prerequisite
>that you be able to debug your whole system configuration in order to get
>mod_perl working. It just creates a barrier, one which I've always been
>determined to overcome, but which I am sure has turned many other
>would-be mod_perlers away.
Actually, I had an idea about this... I have no idea how mod_perl and
apache 2.0 are going to work. That said, my suggestion is to make
modules work a little more like an rc.d script. Basically, you
download apache and untar it. Then you download mod_perl or mod_php
or mod_ssl or mod_* or all of the above. For each module you run
tar -zxvf mod_whatever.tar.gz
cd mod_whatever
./configure
make link
The make link command creates a "linking" file in the apache source
directory automatically. The "linking" file would basically be a
makefile explaining how to copy the headers and libraries to the
apache tree for compilation.
This way, you wouldn't have to tell apache about everything you
wanted to add. Instead, apache config would just iterate through the
directory with all the "linking" files and know from those files what
to include.
I think this is very similar to the way its currently done, except
it's much more automated and easier for the user (IMHO). I know I've
had problems trying to get mod_php, mod_perl, and mod_ssl to compile
together.
Robert Landrum
--
"A good magician never reveals his secret; the unbelievable trick
becomes simple and obvious once it is explained. So too with UNIX."
Re: mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re:
Problems installing libapreq)
Posted by Robert Landrum <rl...@capitoladvantage.com>.
At 9:20 PM -0700 8/16/01, Nick Tonkin wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:38:56 -0700 Ged Haywood wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Nick Tonkin wrote:
>>
>> > > Somehow they are not getting setup right.
>> >
>> > Yeah, no kidding, Joe.
>>
>
> > He's only trying to help. :)
>
>[snip]
>So what I mean to say is, firstly, that I think that it's unfortunate that
>the level of complexity of getting mod_perl going is so high, and
>maybe some more work could be directed in the ease-of-use area. I realize,
>of course that it takes at least two to tango, and to be fair there are
>many other components of a comprehensive web application platform that
>also have work together with each other and mod_perl. I'm sure in my
>current case it's something to do with how FreeBSD installed Perl, or some
>such. But that's my whole point. I don't think it should be a prerequisite
>that you be able to debug your whole system configuration in order to get
>mod_perl working. It just creates a barrier, one which I've always been
>determined to overcome, but which I am sure has turned many other
>would-be mod_perlers away.
Actually, I had an idea about this... I have no idea how mod_perl and
apache 2.0 are going to work. That said, my suggestion is to make
modules work a little more like an rc.d script. Basically, you
download apache and untar it. Then you download mod_perl or mod_php
or mod_ssl or mod_* or all of the above. For each module you run
tar -zxvf mod_whatever.tar.gz
cd mod_whatever
./configure
make link
The make link command creates a "linking" file in the apache source
directory automatically. The "linking" file would basically be a
makefile explaining how to copy the headers and libraries to the
apache tree for compilation.
This way, you wouldn't have to tell apache about everything you
wanted to add. Instead, apache config would just iterate through the
directory with all the "linking" files and know from those files what
to include.
I think this is very similar to the way its currently done, except
it's much more automated and easier for the user (IMHO). I know I've
had problems trying to get mod_php, mod_perl, and mod_ssl to compile
together.
Robert Landrum
--
"A good magician never reveals his secret; the unbelievable trick
becomes simple and obvious once it is explained. So too with UNIX."
Re: mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re: Problems installing libapreq)
Posted by Robert <ro...@chalmers.com.au>.
I'm running FreeBSD here as well, and just upgraded to 5.6.1, and still have
the original installed perls there. But one of the questions was 'did I want
to retain backward compatibility with the others (5.0, 5.6 etc)' I said yes.
I presume it would have installed differently if I had said no.
Anyway- everything works fine? unless provoked, the latest Perl is used. I
guess it looks backwards if need be.
When installing - configuring - there is usually --prifix switches to allow
you to put stuff where you want it. Most times anyway.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Tonkin" <ni...@rlnt.net>
To: "Andrew Hurst" <an...@hurstdog.org>
Cc: <mo...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re: Problems
installing libapreq)
>
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Andrew Hurst wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:25:19PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Nick Tonkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > ( In the absence of any better ideas at this time, I'm gonna nuke
> > > > /usr/local/lib/perl5 completely and see what happens if I start
over
> > > > again. )
> > >
> > > On FreeBSD, better do a new installation of perl somewhere else
> > > (/home/perl, /usr/local/perl/, ... whatever) and do all the mod_perl
> > > stuff with that (just use "/home/perl/bin/perl Makefile.PL" and
> > > "/home/perl/bin/perl -MCPAN -e shell" and so on later).
> >
> > In my experience, its better to stick with the FreeBSD installed perl.
> > I used to upgrade to perl 5.6.1 whenever cpan wanted to, but it created
> > too many problems, for one, it seems that FreeBSD installed libperl.so,
etc
> > to /usr/lib. When I reinstalled perl, it would put them in
/user/local/lib.
> > I would also have a libperl.a in both of those directories.
> >
> > Furthurmore, after installing mod_perl (I think it was mod_perl that put
> > this there) I would have one in
> > /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-freebsd/CORE/libperl.a
>
>
> Well, exactly. My point was that you have to be a sysadmin to make sense
> of all this. I just set up a new system, following all the READMEs and
> INSTALLs and the mod_perl Guide step-by-step for apache-mod_perl-mod_ssl,
> and wound up with the situation you described:
>
> from /usr/lib (presumably from the FreeBSD 5.005 installation):
> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel - 851006 Aug 11 23:21 libperl.a
>
> from /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-freebsd/CORE:
> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel - 1184132 Aug 16 21:52 libperl.a
>
> (note that I completely deleted /usr/local/lib/perl5 manually before
> reinstalling Perl 6.6.1 by hand)
>
> Perhaps it is FreeBSD that is to blame, but whoever the culprit, I think
> it should be easier for simple Perl-mod_perl _users_ to get a system
> installed.
>
> >
> > Having these 3 versions really screwed things over, so when I tried to
> > install mod_perl, mod_php, and mod_ssl (latest versions) it would fail
> > with a Dynaloader.o undefined reference error. After re-making world,
> > all works fine, and I'm not upgrading perl on this until freebsd wants
> > to again :)
> >
> > So in my opinion its much better to not even mess with upgrading perl
> > on FreeBSD, too many problems. Though there might be a good way to do
> > it that I'm not aware of.
> >
> > -Andrew Hurst
>
>
Re: mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re: Problems
installing libapreq)
Posted by Nick Tonkin <ni...@rlnt.net>.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Andrew Hurst wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:25:19PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Nick Tonkin wrote:
> >
> > > ( In the absence of any better ideas at this time, I'm gonna nuke
> > > /usr/local/lib/perl5 completely and see what happens if I start over
> > > again. )
> >
> > On FreeBSD, better do a new installation of perl somewhere else
> > (/home/perl, /usr/local/perl/, ... whatever) and do all the mod_perl
> > stuff with that (just use "/home/perl/bin/perl Makefile.PL" and
> > "/home/perl/bin/perl -MCPAN -e shell" and so on later).
>
> In my experience, its better to stick with the FreeBSD installed perl.
> I used to upgrade to perl 5.6.1 whenever cpan wanted to, but it created
> too many problems, for one, it seems that FreeBSD installed libperl.so, etc
> to /usr/lib. When I reinstalled perl, it would put them in /user/local/lib.
> I would also have a libperl.a in both of those directories.
>
> Furthurmore, after installing mod_perl (I think it was mod_perl that put
> this there) I would have one in
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-freebsd/CORE/libperl.a
Well, exactly. My point was that you have to be a sysadmin to make sense
of all this. I just set up a new system, following all the READMEs and
INSTALLs and the mod_perl Guide step-by-step for apache-mod_perl-mod_ssl,
and wound up with the situation you described:
from /usr/lib (presumably from the FreeBSD 5.005 installation):
-r--r--r-- 1 root wheel - 851006 Aug 11 23:21 libperl.a
from /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-freebsd/CORE:
-r--r--r-- 1 root wheel - 1184132 Aug 16 21:52 libperl.a
(note that I completely deleted /usr/local/lib/perl5 manually before
reinstalling Perl 6.6.1 by hand)
Perhaps it is FreeBSD that is to blame, but whoever the culprit, I think
it should be easier for simple Perl-mod_perl _users_ to get a system
installed.
>
> Having these 3 versions really screwed things over, so when I tried to
> install mod_perl, mod_php, and mod_ssl (latest versions) it would fail
> with a Dynaloader.o undefined reference error. After re-making world,
> all works fine, and I'm not upgrading perl on this until freebsd wants
> to again :)
>
> So in my opinion its much better to not even mess with upgrading perl
> on FreeBSD, too many problems. Though there might be a good way to do
> it that I'm not aware of.
>
> -Andrew Hurst
Re: mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re: Problems installing libapreq)
Posted by Andrew Hurst <an...@hurstdog.org>.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:25:19PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Nick Tonkin wrote:
>
> > ( In the absence of any better ideas at this time, I'm gonna nuke
> > /usr/local/lib/perl5 completely and see what happens if I start over
> > again. )
>
> On FreeBSD, better do a new installation of perl somewhere else
> (/home/perl, /usr/local/perl/, ... whatever) and do all the mod_perl
> stuff with that (just use "/home/perl/bin/perl Makefile.PL" and
> "/home/perl/bin/perl -MCPAN -e shell" and so on later).
In my experience, its better to stick with the FreeBSD installed perl.
I used to upgrade to perl 5.6.1 whenever cpan wanted to, but it created
too many problems, for one, it seems that FreeBSD installed libperl.so, etc
to /usr/lib. When I reinstalled perl, it would put them in /user/local/lib.
I would also have a libperl.a in both of those directories.
Furthurmore, after installing mod_perl (I think it was mod_perl that put
this there) I would have one in
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-freebsd/CORE/libperl.a
Having these 3 versions really screwed things over, so when I tried to
install mod_perl, mod_php, and mod_ssl (latest versions) it would fail
with a Dynaloader.o undefined reference error. After re-making world,
all works fine, and I'm not upgrading perl on this until freebsd wants
to again :)
So in my opinion its much better to not even mess with upgrading perl
on FreeBSD, too many problems. Though there might be a good way to do
it that I'm not aware of.
-Andrew Hurst
>
>
> - ask
>
> --
> ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
> more than a billion impressions per week, http://valueclick.com
Re: mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re: Problems
installing libapreq)
Posted by Ask Bjoern Hansen <as...@valueclick.com>.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Nick Tonkin wrote:
> ( In the absence of any better ideas at this time, I'm gonna nuke
> /usr/local/lib/perl5 completely and see what happens if I start over
> again. )
On FreeBSD, better do a new installation of perl somewhere else
(/home/perl, /usr/local/perl/, ... whatever) and do all the mod_perl
stuff with that (just use "/home/perl/bin/perl Makefile.PL" and
"/home/perl/bin/perl -MCPAN -e shell" and so on later).
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
more than a billion impressions per week, http://valueclick.com
Re: mod_perl's ease of installation and the list (was: Re: Problems
installing libapreq)
Posted by Ask Bjoern Hansen <as...@valueclick.com>.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Nick Tonkin wrote:
> ( In the absence of any better ideas at this time, I'm gonna nuke
> /usr/local/lib/perl5 completely and see what happens if I start over
> again. )
On FreeBSD, better do a new installation of perl somewhere else
(/home/perl, /usr/local/perl/, ... whatever) and do all the mod_perl
stuff with that (just use "/home/perl/bin/perl Makefile.PL" and
"/home/perl/bin/perl -MCPAN -e shell" and so on later).
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
more than a billion impressions per week, http://valueclick.com