Quoting Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500 > > Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400 > > > > "Christopher H. Laco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts > > surprised > > > > > that "mod_perl 2 is finished?". > > > > > > > > That could be as well. We should really get our 2.0 press > > release > > > > out. > > > > > > RHEL/Centos 4 are still sitting on 1.99_16, which probably isn't > > > helping matters. > > > > > > > Definitely not. Perhaps we should put together some "official" > > replacement RPMs for RHEL/Centos to ease everyone's upgrade path. > > > I've raised a bug on the Centos site for upgrading to mod_perl > 2.0.1: > http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1001
Oops.. centos won't trump redhat packages. That's been resolved, wontfix. See here instead: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166873 > It is currently assigned to the maintainer of the mod_perl rpm, so > we'll > see where that goes - I'll keep an eye on it. Centos packages > mod_perl, > but no extra Apache:: modules. There are some Apache:: modules > available from popular downstream rpm repositories such as dag/dries > which will also need updating. I'll chase this down with those > sites, > too. > > regards, > Tony > >
