You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by Octavian Rasnita <or...@fcc.ro> on 2005/08/26 12:49:52 UTC
survey
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
Teddy
Re: survey
Posted by Michael Peters <mp...@plusthree.com>.
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 Apache2, but mod_perl2 was not officially released
until a few short months ago. I know a lot of people were using it
before it became official released, but many were avoiding it.
--
Michael Peters
Developer
Plus Three, LP
Re: survey
Posted by Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:33:36 -0400
Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com> 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 you want to try it, I can forward them to you.
Send me what you've got and I'll see what I can work up over the
weekend.
---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------
Re: survey
Posted by Randy Kobes <ra...@theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca>.
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 they are using only CGI scripts
> - The programmers using other languages like PHP, Java, ASP...
>
> 1. The users of older versions of mod_perl
> - It is important for them to see that it is very easy to upgrade to latest
> version of mod_perl.
> - It should really be easy to upgrade to mod_perl. Maybe some scripts that
> automaticly make all the replacements could be helpful.
> - Maybe some short tutorials about how to upgrade Apache 1.3 to Apache 2 and
> mod_perl 1 to mod_perl 2 would be helpful.
> - It is important to explain why mod_perl2 is better and why Apache 2 is
> better. (Without Apache 2, they won't have mod_perl 2).
> - It is not important to explain them that perl is good, or that mod_perl is
> good, because they are already using them.
>
> 2. The programmers which are using only cgi scripts
> - It is important to explain why mod_perl is better than cgi, and make some
> speed comparisons (telling that it could be x times faster)..
> - It is very important to explain how easy is to install mod_perl.
> - They need to be tell that the simple cgi programs can run using mod_perl
> with no change.
These are great suggestions ... Many of these points are
addressed in the docs under http://perl.apache.org/; for
Win32 specifically, Apache2/mod_perl-2 offers a very
significant performance increase.
[ ... ]
> Most of those who are not using now mod_perl but are using a computer, are
> probably using Windows, so there should be very easy for them to install
> mod_perl under Windows.
> (I think this target group has the most chances to bring more mod_perl
> users, and after using Windows as a test machine, most of them will probably
> use it under Linux)
Many know this already, but for the archives, for those
Windows uses that want to get started right away,
there's all-in-one binary packages that include mod_perl:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/os/win32/install.html
In particular, the Perl-5.8-win32-bin.exe at
http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/perl/win32-bin/
contains an Apache 2 / Perl-5.8 binary with a httpd.conf
configured with a sample mod_perl Registry script,
a mod_perl handler, and example HTML::Mason, Apache::ASP,
and Template-Toolkit pages.
As for installing mod_perl with an existing Apache/Perl
installation, apart from ppm, there's also a script:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/os/win32/mpinstall
that will take a user through a dialogue to install the
appropriate mod_perl version.
> Many users don't know that apxs can be installed under Windows, so that
> installation kit for apxs for Windows should be included in all the versions
> of mod_perl, promoting that mod_perl can be installed easy under Windows.
When building mod_perl under Windows, an option is presented
to the user to install a Win32 apxs, if it's not present.
It's not mandatory to do so, however, and probably shouldn't
be, as apxs isn't necessary to use mod_perl, and the number
of required components should be kept to a minimum.
> Most perl users under Windows are using Active Perl, and the default ppm
> repositories of Active State should include mod_perl.
> They should also include all the necessary modules which are not installed
> automaticly by mod_perl (those from Apache:: and Apache2::).
This question has arisen in other contexts (eg, installing
GD). ActiveState comes by default only with their
repositories configured, and I can appreciate why - they
add a ppm package to their repository only if it can be
built unattended and all the tests pass, including those
of any dependencies. It then becomes a question of quality
control - packages in other repositories may not necessarily
have passed all their tests, for example. ActiveState does
though, in the ppm FAQ, include a list of other repositories
that are available.
> Anyway, PHP will increase in popularity much faster because it has some
> advantages perl doesn't have, so this fight won't be easy.
>
> Perl would be better if:
[ ... ]
> - If all the modules from CPAN will be able to run under all operating
> system, including Windows, and all those modules could be installed without
> needing a C compiler installed.
> Some perl modules cannot be installed using the cpan shell under Windows,
> and give errors when trying to install them, but they don't need
> compilation, and if they are copied manually in the perl tree, they are
> working fine. I heard a few programmers telling that perl is a bad language
> because they have tried some modules from CPAN and those modules were not
> working fine.
> (Of course, most of them probably tried them under Windows).
Once one is used to it, installing things is pretty easy
with ActiveState's ppm utility. Of course, one problem
is that not all possible CPAN distributions have an
associated ppm package, but usually, if one asks, someone
can make up a ppm package of a missing distribution (if
it can "easily" be built under Windows and "most" of the
tests pass).
--
best regards,
randy
Re: survey
Posted by Octavian Rasnita <or...@fcc.ro>.
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 they are using only CGI scripts
- The programmers using other languages like PHP, Java, ASP...
1. The users of older versions of mod_perl
- It is important for them to see that it is very easy to upgrade to latest
version of mod_perl.
- It should really be easy to upgrade to mod_perl. Maybe some scripts that
automaticly make all the replacements could be helpful.
- Maybe some short tutorials about how to upgrade Apache 1.3 to Apache 2 and
mod_perl 1 to mod_perl 2 would be helpful.
- It is important to explain why mod_perl2 is better and why Apache 2 is
better. (Without Apache 2, they won't have mod_perl 2).
- It is not important to explain them that perl is good, or that mod_perl is
good, because they are already using them.
2. The programmers which are using only cgi scripts
- It is important to explain why mod_perl is better than cgi, and make some
speed comparisons (telling that it could be x times faster)..
- It is very important to explain how easy is to install mod_perl.
- They need to be tell that the simple cgi programs can run using mod_perl
with no change.
3. Those who are using other programming languages
- It won't be easy to target this group, but you should tell them why
mod_perl is better, how it works, make some speed comparisons between the
same program made in perl and Java with the program made in perl and ran by
mod_perl.
- They should see that mod_perl is easy to install.
- They should know that there are no conflicts between mod_perl and other
Apache modules like mod_php and that they can run both on the same server.
This way maybe some of them will want to give it a try.
Apache should promote mod_perl by including a sample configuration file in
the kit, or some (commented out) settings in httpd.conf.
Most of those who are not using now mod_perl but are using a computer, are
probably using Windows, so there should be very easy for them to install
mod_perl under Windows.
(I think this target group has the most chances to bring more mod_perl
users, and after using Windows as a test machine, most of them will probably
use it under Linux)
Many users don't know that apxs can be installed under Windows, so that
installation kit for apxs for Windows should be included in all the versions
of mod_perl, promoting that mod_perl can be installed easy under Windows.
Most perl users under Windows are using Active Perl, and the default ppm
repositories of Active State should include mod_perl.
They should also include all the necessary modules which are not installed
automaticly by mod_perl (those from Apache:: and Apache2::).
Anyway, PHP will increase in popularity much faster because it has some
advantages perl doesn't have, so this fight won't be easy.
Perl would be better if:
- It will have a way of crypting/hiding the source code just like PHP.
This way, the software companies will be able to create web pages for other
companies without providing the source code, and some of them might choose
perl and mod_perl.
- If perl would have a separate interpreter which will be able to parse
templates directly (a kind of php, but using a perl code).
This interpreter would be a good start for the new programmers that just
want to create simple pages, very fast.
- If all the modules from CPAN will be able to run under all operating
system, including Windows, and all those modules could be installed without
needing a C compiler installed.
Some perl modules cannot be installed using the cpan shell under Windows,
and give errors when trying to install them, but they don't need
compilation, and if they are copied manually in the perl tree, they are
working fine. I heard a few programmers telling that perl is a bad language
because they have tried some modules from CPAN and those modules were not
working fine.
(Of course, most of them probably tried them under Windows).
Teddy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Perrin Harkins" <pe...@elem.com>
To: "Frank Wiles" <fr...@wiles.org>
Cc: <mo...@perl.apache.org>
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'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.org/repos/asf/perl/modperl/docs/trunk/work_in_progress/press_release.txt
>
> 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
> you want to try it, I can forward them to you.
>
> It is probably already too long according to friends of mine who work in
> PR-related fields, so anything added to it needs to be very short. I
> realize that everyone wants to say everything they think about mod_perl
> in this one document, but our target here is places like eWeek, not
> hardcore developers. It needs to be short enough that someone might
> bother to read it.
>
> After that is done, I can send it through the Apache Software Foundation
> machinery and get it sent out.
>
> - Perrin
>
Re: survey
Posted by Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>.
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.org/repos/asf/perl/modperl/docs/trunk/work_in_progress/press_release.txt
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
you want to try it, I can forward them to you.
It is probably already too long according to friends of mine who work in
PR-related fields, so anything added to it needs to be very short. I
realize that everyone wants to say everything they think about mod_perl
in this one document, but our target here is places like eWeek, not
hardcore developers. It needs to be short enough that someone might
bother to read it.
After that is done, I can send it through the Apache Software Foundation
machinery and get it sent out.
- Perrin
Re: survey
Posted by Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>.
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 make this
change.
- Perrin
Re: survey
Posted by Tony Clayton <to...@clayton.ca>.
Quoting Tony Clayton <to...@clayton.ca>:
> Quoting Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
> > Tony Clayton <to...@clayton.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > > > "Christopher H. Laco" <cl...@chrislaco.com> 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.
> > >
> > > RHEL/Centos 4 are still sitting on 1.99_16, which probably isn't
> > > helping matters.
> > >
> >
> > Definitely not. Perhaps we should put together some "official"
> > replacement RPMs for RHEL/Centos to ease everyone's upgrade path.
>
>
> 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
Oops.. centos won't trump redhat packages. That's been resolved,
wontfix.
See here instead:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166873
> It is currently assigned to the maintainer of the mod_perl rpm, so
> we'll
> see where that goes - I'll keep an eye on it. Centos packages
> mod_perl,
> but no extra Apache:: modules. There are some Apache:: modules
> available from popular downstream rpm repositories such as dag/dries
> which will also need updating. I'll chase this down with those
> sites,
> too.
>
> regards,
> Tony
>
>
Re: survey
Posted by Tony Clayton <to...@clayton.ca>.
Quoting Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
> Tony Clayton <to...@clayton.ca> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>:
> >
> > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > > "Christopher H. Laco" <cl...@chrislaco.com> 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.
> >
> > RHEL/Centos 4 are still sitting on 1.99_16, which probably isn't
> > helping matters.
> >
>
> Definitely not. Perhaps we should put together some "official"
> replacement RPMs for RHEL/Centos to ease everyone's upgrade path.
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
It is currently assigned to the maintainer of the mod_perl rpm, so we'll
see where that goes - I'll keep an eye on it. Centos packages mod_perl,
but no extra Apache:: modules. There are some Apache:: modules
available from popular downstream rpm repositories such as dag/dries
which will also need updating. I'll chase this down with those sites,
too.
regards,
Tony
Re: survey
Posted by Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
Tony Clayton <to...@clayton.ca> wrote:
> Quoting Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > "Christopher H. Laco" <cl...@chrislaco.com> 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.
>
> RHEL/Centos 4 are still sitting on 1.99_16, which probably isn't
> helping matters.
>
Definitely not. Perhaps we should put together some "official"
replacement RPMs for RHEL/Centos to ease everyone's upgrade path.
---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------
Re: survey
Posted by Alexander Charbonnet <al...@charbonnet.com>.
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 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 infinitum, nothing on backports.org, so for anyone running
> anything Debian production, no mod_perl2 for the next few years.
>
> :((
Re: survey
Posted by Xan Charbonnet <xa...@charbonnet.com>.
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 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 infinitum, nothing on backports.org, so for anyone running
> anything Debian production, no mod_perl2 for the next few years.
>
> :((
Re: survey
Posted by Jeff <de...@aquabolt.com>.
>> 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 infinitum, nothing on backports.org, so for anyone running
anything Debian production, no mod_perl2 for the next few years.
:((
Re: survey
Posted by Dave Rolsky <au...@urth.org>.
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.Org www.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg. My book blog
===================================================*/
Re: survey
Posted by Jeff <de...@aquabolt.com>.
>
> 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
stable' policy, means that Debian will not have a stable mod_perl2 any
time in the near future.
It is not even available on Testing and Unstable :(
Re: survey
Posted by Tony Clayton <to...@clayton.ca>.
Quoting Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> "Christopher H. Laco" <cl...@chrislaco.com> 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.
RHEL/Centos 4 are still sitting on 1.99_16, which probably isn't helping
matters.
Re: survey
Posted by Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
"Christopher H. Laco" <cl...@chrislaco.com> 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 help or need someone to take it over,
I've got some time this weekend I could work on it. Let me know.
---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------
Re: survey
Posted by "Christopher H. Laco" <cl...@chrislaco.com>.
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 still in README:
> This is mod_perl version 2.0-tobe
...
> *** Status ***
>
> mod_perl is currently considered beta.
That's certainly not helping matters either.
-=Chris
Re: survey
Posted by Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>.
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.
Re: survey
Posted by "Christopher H. Laco" <cl...@chrislaco.com>.
Frank Wiles wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:49:52 +0300
> "Octavian Rasnita" <or...@fcc.ro> 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 long ago and I think it is partly
> due to two things:
>
> 1) OS distributions that don't have mod_perl ( and other modules )
> listed in the server headers.
>
> 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.
>
> I do think mod_perl may be, in general, slipping in "market share",
> but I don't think it is as drastic as the netcraft numbers would
> lead us to believe.
>
> We tried last year to get a mod_perl advocacy movement going, but
> not to many people were interested in helping with it.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>
> http://www.wiles.org
> ---------------------------------
>
>
Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised that
"mod_perl 2 is finished?".
-=Chris
Re: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
Posted by Malcolm J Harwood <mj...@liminalflux.net>.
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 1.99_16.
The next release (due on the 15th) has perl 5.8.7, httpd 2.0.54, mod_perl
2.0.1. I'm not sure what the status of any backport is.
--
"The Universe doesn't give you any points for doing things that are easy."
- Sheridan to Garibaldi in Babylon 5:"The Geometry of Shadows"
Re: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
Posted by "Philippe M. Chiasson" <go...@ectoplasm.org>.
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 build tree - I want my distro to
>>> do the right thing. Perhaps a first-step in the advocacy movement is
>>> to maintain a "distro compatibility list" for mod_perl 2 on
>>> perl.apache.org, so that it's not such a black-art in determining
>>> whether mod_perl/Apache::* packages are up-to-date or whether there are
>>> timebombs waiting to ambush new users.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Speaking of which, can anyone point me to a place where I can get a
> prebuilt mod_perl later than 1.99_12 for Fedora Core 1?
Fresh from the oven, built:
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/4/SRPMS/mod_perl-2.0.1-1.fc4.src.rpm
On an up-to-date FC1 box:
http://people.apache.org/~gozer/mp2/rpms/fc1/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe M. Chiasson m/gozer\@(apache|cpan|ectoplasm)\.org/ GPG KeyID : 88C3A5A5
http://gozer.ectoplasm.org/ F9BF E0C2 480E 7680 1AE5 3631 CB32 A107 88C3A5A5
Re: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
Posted by Stef1 <St...@pandava.com>.
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 maintain my own perl/mod_perl build tree - I want my distro to
>>>> do the right thing. Perhaps a first-step in the advocacy movement is
>>>> to maintain a "distro compatibility list" for mod_perl 2 on
>>>> perl.apache.org, so that it's not such a black-art in determining
>>>> whether mod_perl/Apache::* packages are up-to-date or whether there
>>>> are
>>>> timebombs waiting to ambush new users.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 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.
>
> I can state FreeBSD as being at perl5.8.7/httpd2.0.54/mod_perl2.0.1
> via ports and packages.
>
Fedora 4 (fully updated) has perl-5.8.6/httpd2.0.54/mod_perl2.0.1 (it
was originally 2.0.0rc5)
RHEL4 has perl5.8.5/httpd2.0.52/mod_perl1.99.16
but a "rpmbuild --rebuild mod_perl-2.0.1-1.fc4.src.rpm" did the trick
regards,
Stefan Loones
Re: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
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 build tree - I want my distro to
>>> do the right thing. Perhaps a first-step in the advocacy movement is
>>> to maintain a "distro compatibility list" for mod_perl 2 on
>>> perl.apache.org, so that it's not such a black-art in determining
>>> whether mod_perl/Apache::* packages are up-to-date or whether there are
>>> timebombs waiting to ambush new users.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
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.
I can state FreeBSD as being at perl5.8.7/httpd2.0.54/mod_perl2.0.1 via ports and packages.
--
END
------------------------------------------------------------
What doesn't kill us can only make us stronger.
Nothing is impossible.
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) 301.254.5198
Consultant / http://p6m7g8.net/Resume/
Senior Developer / Liquidity Services, Inc.
http://www.liquidityservicesinc.com
http://www.liquidation.com
http://www.uksurplus.com
http://www.govliquidation.com
http://www.gowholesale.com
Re: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
Posted by Anton van Straaten <an...@appsolutions.com>.
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 distro to
>>do the right thing. Perhaps a first-step in the advocacy movement is
>>to maintain a "distro compatibility list" for mod_perl 2 on
>>perl.apache.org, so that it's not such a black-art in determining
>>whether mod_perl/Apache::* packages are up-to-date or whether there are
>>timebombs waiting to ambush new users.
>
>
> 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.
Speaking of which, can anyone point me to a place where I can get a
prebuilt mod_perl later than 1.99_12 for Fedora Core 1?
Version 1.99_14 apparently existed at one time at
http://buscaluz.org/rpms/ -- which is linked to from
http://perl.apache.org/download/binaries.html -- but the link is now dead.
Any assistance would be much appreciated. I'm reluctantly dealing with
a hosted FC1 server, and building mod_perl from source looks like more
trouble than it's worth.
Anton
Re: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
Posted by Carl Johnstone <mo...@fadetoblack.demon.co.uk>.
> 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 right thing. Perhaps a first-step in the advocacy movement is
> to maintain a "distro compatibility list" for mod_perl 2 on
> perl.apache.org, so that it's not such a black-art in determining
> whether mod_perl/Apache::* packages are up-to-date or whether there are
> timebombs waiting to ambush new users.
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've been taking the option of using
the version in Sarge, and figuring our where I differ from the docs.
I've been checking apt-get.org regularly to see if anybody had setup a
repository, and backports. I hadn't been checking the incoming folder on
backports, so didn't realise that somebody had done the pacakge till it was
mentioned on here recently.
Carl
*nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
Posted by Tony Clayton <to...@clayton.ca>.
Quoting Fred Moyer <fr...@redhotpenguin.com>:
> 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 YAPC and the summer
> conferences
> got everyone busy. Maybe we should move this thread there and
> inject
> some more energy into the advocacy movement.
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 right thing. Perhaps a first-step in the advocacy movement is
to maintain a "distro compatibility list" for mod_perl 2 on
perl.apache.org, so that it's not such a black-art in determining
whether mod_perl/Apache::* packages are up-to-date or whether there are
timebombs waiting to ambush new users.
Purging the out-of-date mod_perl2 packages from distros seems like it
will be a huge first step. We'll likely lose potential mod_perl users
if they get excited about mod_perl only to find it is broken in their
distro of choice.
My $.02
Tony
Re: survey
Posted by Fred Moyer <fr...@redhotpenguin.com>.
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 YAPC and the summer conferences
got everyone busy. Maybe we should move this thread there and inject
some more energy into the advocacy movement.
Re: survey
Posted by Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>.
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 front-end server identification strings. In
short, these numbers are nearly worthless.
Also, has anyone looked to see how other server headers like PHP5 or
WebSphere are comparing? I couldn't find it on the Netcraft site.
- Perrin
Re: survey
Posted by Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:49:52 +0300
"Octavian Rasnita" <or...@fcc.ro> 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 long ago and I think it is partly
due to two things:
1) OS distributions that don't have mod_perl ( and other modules )
listed in the server headers.
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.
I do think mod_perl may be, in general, slipping in "market share",
but I don't think it is as drastic as the netcraft numbers would
lead us to believe.
We tried last year to get a mod_perl advocacy movement going, but
not to many people were interested in helping with it.
---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------