On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:04:42 -0800 Bennett Haselton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, turns out that's displayed in the SERVER_SOFTWARE environment > variable by CGI scripts on the server. How did you know that? :) I'm magic! ;) Actually it's in the test report you posted earlier, I just missed it the first time around. > >Have you removed the mod_perl rpm? > > Nope. I was following the steps at: > http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/rename.html#Effects > which said that the only thing I had to do was run this command: > find /usr/lib/perl5 -name 'Apache2*' -exec rm -rf {} \; Yeah those are not the right instructions to be following if you're attempting to install the way you are. I.e. on a RH/Fedora system using the rpm installed Apache. > Do I have to do something else if I want to "remove the mod_perl rpm"? Just run 'rpm -e mod_perl' on your system. > Oh OK, I was going by the instructions at > http://gozer.ectoplasm.org/Talks/mod_perl-2.0-from-cgi-fast.pdf > since they were the only set of instructions I could find on the > entire Internet that specified what to type (thank God that Google > indexes PDF files :) ) > And > http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/install/install.html > says "a correctly built Apache shouldn't require the MP_APR_CONFIG > option, since MP_APXS should provide the location of this script." I > thought the version of Apache on my machine was "correctly built" > since it was, after all, running, but maybe that means something > other than what I think it means. Does "correctly built" actually > mean "you built it on your system the old fashioned way, with your > own compiler"? Yes, RH uses an "odd" layout compared to most Apache installs. But if you read the paragraph before it says: For example RedHat Linux system installs the httpd binary, the apxs and apr-config scripts (the latter two are needed to build mod_perl) all in different locations, therefore they configure mod_perl 2.0 as: % perl Makefile.PL MP_APXS=/path/to/apxs \ MP_APR_CONFIG=/another/path/to/apr-config <other options> Which should have been the big tip off, but I can see how you got off track. > I suppose lots of people must ask, "Why can't the installer be a > single program that I just run, like on Windows", but why can't it > be? Without getting into a bunch of details the main reason is well, with Windows you have I dunno say 8 different platforms to support ( 98, ME, 2000 Home, 2000 Pro, XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, XP SP3, etc ). mod_perl runs on many different operating systems, including Linux. And with Linux alone there are literally thousands of different distributions. Granted, 99% of them are going to install the same, but finding all of the various permutations of scenarios is non-trivial. This doesn't even get into Free/Net/OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc, etc, etc. >I have spent three weeks trying to get this working, and every time I >run into an error, I seek out help and find out the instructions from >the Web that I was working off of, were incomplete, or wrong, and >there's always one more thing I have to do first. An installer >program can do all of this automatically. I understand your frustration, but when in doubt the "correct" instructions on are perl.apache.org or the ones you find here on the mailing list. For the most part anyway, despite the rumors to the contrary, mod_perl is built by humans which sometimes make mistakes. ;) Considering RH/Fedora is so popular, I'll work up a special instruction document just for them so Google searches will find it and see about getting it added onto the site. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
