----- Original Message -----
From: "John K Sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] win32 module names now like unix
>
>
> 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.
>
Hi,
It would be wierd to have this, but I guess that's life now ....
> > 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
I think too advocating the switch is a good idea - as you say, most
Win32 people will probably move to 1.3.15 anyway - apparently it
will now be labelled as "initial release quality", rather than
"beta release quality". But perhaps we should not force the issue,
if reasonable. What we could do is
- search for the Apache lib in the directory according to the Apache
version, as in your patch;
- let mod_perl build an ApacheModulePerl.dll for now, and
change this to build a mod_perl.so later on, when this new
convention is the norm. This way, people not building with
1.3.15 won't panic when they can't find ApacheModulePerl.dll, and
those that are using 1.3.15 are probably aware of the needed
name change;
- if the user elects to install automatically with the INSTALL_DLL
attribute, copy ApacheModulePerl.dll to the indicated directory
as mod_perl.so or as ApacheModulePerl.dll, according to the
Apache version;
- if the user elects to install manually, they're probably aware
of the new convention if they're using 1.3.15; we could print out
a message from Makefile.PL that ApacheModulePerl.dll must
be copied to $APACHE/modules/mod_perl.so if 1.3.15 is being used.
More generally, we could have Makefile.PL print a about
this impending changeover;
- update the docs accordingly;
Does this sound reasonable?
best regards,
randy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
