-Sx- said> Building as STATIC caused Apache to be rebuilt using the now
current uselargefiles setting.
Sam Tregar said> I don't think so. Rebuilding Apache/mod_perl static with
the exact same Perl that shipped with Redhat 6.2 solved the segfaults.
:)
How is this different from what I said?
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, WC -Sx- Jones wrote:
> Back in RH 6.2 I would hazard that the segfault was more related to Perl
> being set to uselargefiles and Apache NOT being set. This only became
> visible when one tried to build mod_perl as a DSO. Building as STATIC caused
> Apache to be rebuilt usin
Sam Tregar> No, the last Redhat Apache/mod_perl I used was in 6.2. I didn't
file a Sam Tregar> bug about it because after looking around it appeared
that it was a well Sam Tregar> known problem. After that I started
compiling Apache/mod_perl static and Sam Tregar> left the seg-faults behind.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Gary Benson wrote:
> Is this a problem you've had recently, and did you file a bug about it?
No, the last Redhat Apache/mod_perl I used was in 6.2. I didn't file a
bug about it because after looking around it appeared that it was a well
known problem. After that I started
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of
> > running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be
> > fine.)
>
> Segmentation faults, pure and simple. The Apa
Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:32AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of
> > running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be
> > fine.)
>
> Did yo
IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
>
>
> I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static
> mod_perl is the "only way to go".
>
> But Redhat ships it as a DSO.
>
> Now, on the one hand, I wouldn't just a
> On 22 Jul 2002 10:26:32 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
DD> I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static
DD> mod_perl is the "only way to go".
I've been using mod_perl as DSO for more than one year (or even maybe
two) without any problems on FreeBS
Hi David,
On 22 Jul 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> But Redhat ships it as a DSO.
Debian also, but I think that is only for simplicity. It would be
'expensive' to produce static versions of apache with mod_perl,
or with mod_php or both.
> On the other hand, I've asked a couple local mod_perl
On 22 Jul 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of
> running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be
> fine.)
Segmentation faults, pure and simple. The Apache/mod_perl that ships with
Redhat, and I assume other
Hi!
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:32AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of
> running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be
> fine.)
Did you take a look at this:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/i
I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static
mod_perl is the "only way to go".
But Redhat ships it as a DSO.
Now, on the one hand, I wouldn't just automatically assume that Redhat
knew what they were doing.
On the other hand, I've asked a couple local mod_perl junkies I
12 matches
Mail list logo
