Randy Kobes wrote:
> would people get
> too confused if a mod_perl.so was installed if they were building
> against apache_1.3.12, say? Should we have an Apache version
> check in there to use mod_perl.so for 1.3.15 and ApacheModulePerl.dll
> for pre-1.3.15?
Great point - this would also allow us to look in the correct place for the
ApacheCore.lib file depending on the version. Makefile.PL could patch these
things up - and that would simplify everyone's problems except for.... dah dah
dah... the documentation. It would be pretty wierd to have 2 sections in the
docs 1 for pre-1.3.15 one for post 1.3.15 but i suppose it would work.
> The "advantage" to Windows, though, is that
> it forces you to upgrade often, so adopting the 1.3.15 convention
> right away might not cause a problem ....
>
true - and it won't actually break it to use mod_perl.so in pre-1.3.15 builds,
it'll just be different from the standard modules naming.
i could go either way, though i think i advocate switching immediately to
mod_perl.so for consistency - and before we know it - this convention will be
the norm (especially considering all win32 users will most likely flock to
apache 2.0 when it comes out and should move to 1.3.15 asap).
thoughts? should we put version support into Makefile.PL and have 2
installation sections in the docs (pre/post 1.3.15) or just move to the new
convention and recomend an apache upgrade to 1.3.15 (which has a bunch of new
support for win32 users anyway)?
sterling
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
