I put in a request to have it looked at as a bug though once again I'm not sure if this is the corect procedure for getting redhat to fix an issue in a enterprise product. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194074
Thanks for the information. I'll just have to wait to migrate. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Wiles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: modperl@perl.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache::Server not included in mod_perl-1.99_16-4 On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:11:24 -0400 Kurt Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reese,Richard Stephen wrote: > > >Thank you for the information, it just stinks that Redhat would use > >something that old in their latest OS offering because I'd rather not > >manually build it > > > > > It's a long-standing problem. This history recently posted to the > CentOS mailing list: > > "I think you are missing the point that there was one version of > mod_perl 1.x shipped as an update to RH7.3 that was actually usable. > It was broken again in RH8 and subsequent versions including went into > RHEL 3 and 4. > I think the 2.x version may finally be usable again in FC5 but I > haven't really done stress testing." > > > Considering that this is a problem that has been going on for years, > even fixed and then broken again, I have to conclude that keeping > mod_perl up to standard just falls too low on the priority list for > Red Hat. Their conclusion must be that they don't have enough > customers to warrant more resources. It may be a sound business > decision on their part, however much it annoys us. I would bet it's more "here is what looks like the latest stable version right now, package it up and put it into RHEL". Instead of either: 1) Having an active mod_perl person build the RPMs for them 2) Asking the mod_perl community "is this a good version for us to include"? Having been so long ago it's difficult to remember exact time lines, but I seem to remember a situation where if RH had just waited about 48 hours they would have had a "good" version rather than the broken one they did include. I do understand that they can't wait for every project to get into a good spot before releasing as there won't ever be a single point in time when everyone is happy with things. But it would be nice for them to either ask about project status and give a "to be included in RHEL 5.0 you need to be stable by July 14th". Is the mod_perl RPM maintainer for Fedora even on this list? --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
