I use Rackspace for my Unix hosting and support. They install Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and 4 that both have beta versions of Mod_Perl installed (ModPerl 1.99_16). Are these not recommended for use on a production server?
-----Original Message----- From: Perrin Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:46 AM To: David Christensen Cc: modperl@perl.apache.org Subject: RE: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey) On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 22:50 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > If I understand it correctly, Catalyst can run under Perl/CGI, Apache/ mod_perl > CGI emulation layers (Apache::Registry, FastCGI?, others?), Apache/ mod_perl, > Apache2/ mod_perl2 CGI emulation layers (?), and Apache2/ mod_perl2. It's a > matter of choosing the right engine, or letting Catalyst make the choice for > you. It looks very compelling. But, I need to find a stable platform first. I don't think this changes your situation any. CGI is not really fast enough to use, so you still need mod_perl or FastCGI. Because the current crop of linux distros came out before mod_perl 2 but couldn't use mod_perl 1 (since they are using apache 2), they have poor mod_perl support in their packaging systems. You can wait for the next round, or build your own packages, or use an OS like FreeBSD which has a more up- to-date package. You can also try FastCGI or SpeedyCGI, but I don't know what the situation is like with packages for them. In my experience, supporting other people's apache builds is hard, and it's much simpler to give them a package that installs somewhere other than /usr/local/apache and runs on a port other than 80. Then they can proxy to it from their crazy apache build and you don't have to make your stuff work with someone else's out-of-date and broken stuff. - Perrin
