I appreciate my last email was a long, I'll cut to the chase:

1. Is it true that AxKit cannot and will-not function with a mismatch in
large file support between apache, perl and mod_perl? 

2. If that's true, I'm willing to make modifications so it can function with
a mismatch. Is this possible or would I be wasting my time trying?

Thanks

Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 07 November 2003 09:01

Thanks for your replies Kip and Matt,

My ISP claims apache was compiled with LFS. However apxs -q cflags does not
show any mention of LARGEFILE_SOURCE neither does ap_config_auto.h. Would
you say that my ISP is mistaken and that apxs is correct?

Perl -V indicates USE_LARGE_FILES as a compile time option. Since this is
reported by the perl binary I trust it to be true.

I'm not sure what mod_perl was compiled with but Apache::MyConfig indicates
'PERL_USELARGEFILES' => 0. Apache::MyConfig does not look any thing up at
runtime, so I assume it is created when mod_perl is installed, my ISP claims
it is reporting incorrectly but I've got a feeling it is not.

Since my AxKit is failing on make test [Unexpected per_dir_config = NULL at
ConfigReader.pm line 43. in the apache log] I don't think it is to do with
mod_ssl because mod_ssl is not loaded in the test configuration. So it looks
like I have a compilation mismatch. And everything I've read indicates this
is a LFS mismatch.

The really weird thing is that I've had it working fine for the last year,
during which I made various changes, including upgrades, installing the cvs
version and downgrades with no problem. My ISP claims that they have changed
nothing, so all that happened on Tuesday was that I installed the latest
cvs. Since then I've uninstalled everything and tried to install a fresh
AxKit 1.62 but I've come across this problem.

Whatever the case I think I need to pursue a LFS mismatch as the culprit for
my problems. I have the following questions:

Is it true that AxKit cannot, will-not function with a LFS mismatch in
apache perl and mod_perl? Is there a way I could get AxKit to function with
my current apache, perl, mod_perl combination? It seems that I already have
been since that dates on the relevant files show that that have compiled as
they are for the last few months, during which my AxKit has been working.

Aug 18 12:11 /usr/sbin/httpd
Aug 22 09:14 /bin/perl
Apr 22  2003 /usr/lib/apache/libperl.so

However I'm now getting an error during installation which points to an LFS
problem.

I guess I have the following, although my ISP claims they all have LFS:
Apache    no LFS
perl      LFS
mod_perl  no LFS

Considering that I do not have root access what would you recommend I do?

Many thanks

Adam




-----Original Message-----
From: Kip Hampton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 06 November 2003 23:15
To: Adam Griffiths

If you read that post [1] carefully its about *turning off* large file 
support and seemed to help both the author and the person seeing the 
same error that you are. Maybe give it a whirl...

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 06 November 2003 22:56
To: Adam Griffiths

Every time I've ever come across this it's because of large files (or 
mod_ssl/EAPI) as listed in the FAQ. Basically what's causing this is 
some kind of very low level struct sizing error, and that can only be 
caused by compilation mismatches.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

________________________________________________________
s_p_a_m_t_r_a_p       from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do not email the above address or remove these two lines



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to