RH perl/mod_perl RPMs are bad.The discussion this morning on RedHat's Perl and mod_perl has me wanting to ask about the general consensus on those packages. I develop and maintain a fair-sized mod_perl app called "CMap" (http://www.gmod.org/cmap), and my typical installers are biology Ph.D.'s who generally have only a rudimentary knowledge of installing software on *nix platforms. I've written a fairly dense INSTALL doc that assumes people will be installing everything from source, starting with Perl and following through to Apache/mod_perl. However, most people seem to start off with the lastest version of RedHat with some default installation that includes a number of the needed packages (Perl, libgd, MySQL, Apache/mod_perl), so it doesn't seem necessary for me to encourage them to remove those and start from scratch. At the time I first wrote my INSTALL doc, it seemed most Perl-related RPMs from RedHat were broken, so GD.pm and mod_perl and Apache::Request, etc., would give me trouble installing unless I started out doing "rpm -e --nodeps perl" and relied on no RPMs whatsoever.
I was wondering if the consensus is that RedHat's Perl and mod_perl RPMs are good enough now that I should assume my pseudo-technical users can rely on them and just worry about installing my code?
ky
1) Perl 5.8.0 have bug which appear only with RH and Storable.pm. Fix: upgrade Storable.pm
2) RH use locale containing utf so perl 5.8.0 by default use utf encoding for IO. Fix: change LANG to something non-UTF.
3) RH use mod_perl2 which is unstable and choosed really unstable(1.99_7) version. Issues: POST requests truncation. Fix: install 1.99_10
4) And may be other issues... may be I forgot something which I've allready fixed in any way.
-- Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
