----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kaufman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Garry Heaton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "mod_Perl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: (beginner) Win32 installation / "Writing Apache Modules in Perl
& C"
> "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://perl.apache.org/distributions.html contains links to how to
> > install mod_perl via ActivePerl's ppm (Perl Package Manager), as
> > well as some other Apache::* modules. For starting out on Win32 this
route
> > is probably the easiest, as everything you need to get started
> > comes with the ppm distribution.
>
> hmmm. Randy, I'm running your *other* mod_perl binary distribution
(linked
> on the same page)
> ftp://theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca/pub/other/perl-win32-bin-0.6.exe because after
> reading the readmes, it seemed the easiest to get up and runnig with:
>
> no setup/install program routine
> just unzip into the directories specified in the readme,
> edit autoexec.bat for path and variables, as specified
> edit conf files to taste, and
> voila! perl 5.6, apache and ssl!
>
> what could be easier?
Hi,
Thanks :)
>
> also, besides replacing (and not playing nice with) ActiveState perl, are
> there any other particular advantages or drawbacks between this
distribution
> and the AS-compatible ppm packages available from theoryx5uwinnipeg.ca
site?
> is one or the other more recent, or better maintained? which do you prefer
> personally?
>
> the readme.txt mentions:
> "If you do not intend to run mod_perl, then you should consider
> using ActiveState's perl (http://www.activestate.com/), which is more
> widely used and supported."
>
> i'd guess most here (including the originator of this thread) do intend to
> run mod_perl, so is this statement in the readme.txt no longer relevant?
At the time this series of distributions was started, mod_perl didn't work
with ActivePerl, and so this warning was appropriate, as the
level of support from ActiveState would be so much greater. I had
thought that since a Win32 ActivePerl mod_perl package is now available
that there wouldn't be a need for this alternate distribution, but I guess
there
is - for reasons like you mentioned, and also, like Robert mentioned, some
packages, like Embperl, have problems with the compile-time flags ActivePerl
uses ... So I'll be maintaining both - I expect to have a new (version 0.7)
Win32 perl/mod_perl/mod_ssl binary prepared soon ....
> i happily blew away my Activestate perl installation to install your perl
> build with this distribution (AS was really huge and seemed a bit
bloated),
> but recently realized i'll need AS back if i want to play with their
Komodo
> (sp?) perl IDE...
>
> tia for your thoughts on this,
>
> -dave
For the next version of the perl/mod_perl binary package I'll be keeping
the same compile-time flags as before, so as to easily include packages
like Embperl. However, this means it'll be binary incompatable with
ActivePerl.
Eventually, as these problems are worked out, I could see moving towards
the same compile-time flags of ActivePerl - for mod_perl/apache 2.0, this
would be a necessity. This would also have the advantage of being able to
upgrade module packages through ActiveState's ppm. Even so, there may
still be a need for such an "independent" distribution, as some people don't
like ActivePerl's licensing policy ....
best regards,
randy
