Re: Segfault in PerlModule with PAR.pm

2003-03-24 Thread Stas Bekman
Nathan Byrd wrote: Actually, it was easier than I thought to come up with a stripped down version - it can be done without Apache::PAR or PAR at all - it appears to be happening with any PerlModule coming from an add_config(). The following code generates the same segfault for me: In startup.pl:

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Stas Bekman
Just stuff it in t/conf/modperl_extra_startup.pl IIRC, this doesn't work because extra.conf.in is sucked in via Include before the startup - if extra.conf.in uses PerlModule (which is required for 1.0 custom directives) then it's too late. but again, I already have a workaround - I just think i

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: now I use: PerlSwitches [EMAIL PROTECTED]@/../blib -MApache2 yeah, that's a nice way to do it with 2.0 I'm not quite sure why this should be an Apache::Test responsibility? well, Apache::Test already adds a bunch of libraries via modperl_startup.pl (or whatever the gen

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Geoffrey Young
now I use: PerlSwitches [EMAIL PROTECTED]@/../blib -MApache2 yeah, that's a nice way to do it with 2.0 I'm not quite sure why this should be an Apache::Test responsibility? well, Apache::Test already adds a bunch of libraries via modperl_startup.pl (or whatever the generated one is), and by def

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Stas Bekman
1) I'd like to find a portable way to make perl Makefile.PL TEST_VERBOSE=1 work. I have a patch for this somplace, but it required GetOpts from 5.8.0 and I couldn't figure out how to make it work with 5.6. this is just a minor thing. OK, I'll look at it. 2) for XS based 1.0 modules, I need t

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Geoffrey Young
oh, and as I mentioned before, you can't test assbackwards under Apache::Test. I've also posted a patch for this :) --Geoff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Geoffrey Young
1) t/TEST -conf -httpd ... doesn't find mod_perl.so (it works with -apxs) Previously mentioned by Randy and I'm able to reproduce the problem. yup, I've seen it too. 2) I want Apache::Test to figure out -httpd/-apxs by itself if possible, after all mod_perl already has this information. yea!

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: Ah, of course, I've missed this one. Thanks for reminding me. However the patch should be different, to override only macro->{MOD_INSTALL} and allow Makefile.PL to override other macro => {} keys, similar to 'dynamic_lib'. I'll apply the right fix. coolio otherwise, ni

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Geoffrey Young
Ah, of course, I've missed this one. Thanks for reminding me. However the patch should be different, to override only macro->{MOD_INSTALL} and allow Makefile.PL to override other macro => {} keys, similar to 'dynamic_lib'. I'll apply the right fix. coolio otherwise, nice work stas - it works

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: The punch line is that most 3rd party Apache:: modules's Makefile.PL will look as simple as: require ModPerl::MM; ModPerl::MM::WriteMakefile( NAME => "Apache::Peek", VERSION_FROM => "Peek.pm", ); no matter if they use XS or not. I'd suggest the

Re: [rfc] new ModPerl::MM

2003-03-24 Thread Geoffrey Young
The punch line is that most 3rd party Apache:: modules's Makefile.PL will look as simple as: require ModPerl::MM; ModPerl::MM::WriteMakefile( NAME => "Apache::Peek", VERSION_FROM => "Peek.pm", ); no matter if they use XS or not. I'd suggest the following patch to make