How about this patch:
looks great, with possibly one exception.
Index: Makefile.PL =================================================================== --- Makefile.PL (revision 164840) +++ Makefile.PL (working copy) @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ use constant MIN_HTTPD_VERSION_DYNAMIC => '2.0.47'; use constant MIN_HTTPD_VERSION_STATIC => '2.0.51';
-my($old_modperl_version, $old_modperl_pm); +my($old_modperl_version, $old_modperl_pm, $old_Apache2_pm);
BEGIN { eval { @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ if ($mod_perl::VERSION < 1.999_22 && $old_mp2) { $old_modperl_version = $mod_perl::VERSION; $old_modperl_pm = delete $INC{'mod_perl.pm'}; + $old_Apache2_pm = delete $INC{'Apache2.pm'};
will this catch the case where someone nuked Apache2.pm but has mod_perl.pm _not_ under Apache2/mod_perl.pm (as would happen with MP_APACHE2_INST=0) ? I don't think it will, but I'm not sure - it's these things that made my mind race :)
Well, my patch doesn't change the detection code, it just improves the diagnostics. So as previously it was supposed to detect that case (right) it should still work. The only problem with this case and the diagnostics that my patch adds is here:
+ push @dirs, $path if $path =~ /Apache2/;
which will fail to point out at the problematic directory.
So it should probably be:
$path =~ /Apache2/ or $old_modperl_version > 1.99;
other than that, I like the new "problem files" format. +1.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
