William McKee wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:22:20PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
have you loaded Apache::Response?
No, I wasn't aware that I needed to specify this module.
Probably because your startup/config setups are different. You loaded
'Apache::Response' in your normal setup, but not in y
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 02:51 PM 3/15/2004, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> >> also, there apparently is no longer an apxs.pl for 2.0 windows --
> >> so what's the magic Makefile.PL argument to let the test modules
> >> be built?
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:22:20PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> have you loaded Apache::Response?
No, I wasn't aware that I needed to specify this module.
> Probably because your startup/config setups are different. You loaded
> 'Apache::Response' in your normal setup, but not in your A-t setup.
At 02:51 PM 3/15/2004, you wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> also, there apparently is no longer an apxs.pl for 2.0 windows --
>> so what's the magic Makefile.PL argument to let the test modules
>> be built?
>
>There is an alpha port of apxs for Win32 for Apache/2.0;
>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:33:25PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Neither to me. Are you sure you get the "Statement unlikely to be reached"
> error from the same place? It happens long before the server has started,
> and "failed to resolve handler" is an error from the run-time or a server
> star
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:30:51PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Have you been talking about mod_perl 1 all this time?
Yep.
> If not, you can only build mp2 as DSO at the moment. You don't need to
> build perl with -Duseshrplib to get a DSO mod_perl build (certainly
> for mp2, not 100% sure about
William McKee wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:35:08PM -0500, William McKee wrote:
Yeah, that's certainly a concern. I'd like to figure out my
misconfiguration issue above then will attempt your proposal to nuke all
these old installations and start fresh.
Well, I'm now seeing this "Statement unl
William McKee wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:44:46PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
that's when you start apache/mp, right? You need to remove that library and
then rebuild mod_perl. It should now find the library under
/usr/local/lib/perl5/.../libperl.so
Yeah, sure enough I moved all the libperl.
William McKee wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:17:50PM -0500, William McKee wrote:
Just FYI, after moving the libperl.* out of /usr/lib and rebuilding
Apache/mp, I'm still having problems with the TestRun.pm module. I'll
try building Perl with O2 next.
Rebuilt Perl and mod_perl with -O2. But I'm
William McKee wrote:
I'm running into a problem when doing testing under Win32 that doesn't
happen when testing in Linux or when I run my program in Win32 with
Apache2 and modperl (Randy's binary).
The error is as follows:
[Sun Mar 14 18:02:02 2004] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] Can't locate object
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> also, there apparently is no longer an apxs.pl for 2.0 windows --
> so what's the magic Makefile.PL argument to let the test modules
> be built?
There is an alpha port of apxs for Win32 for Apache/2.0;
grab the script
http://perl.apache.org/
also, there apparently is no longer an apxs.pl for 2.0 windows --
so what's the magic Makefile.PL argument to let the test modules
be built?
in case there was any question, i hate development on windows,
i hate libtool, and i think i've discovered a special subtype
of 'male pattern baldness' -- ca
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 09:04:32AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> explodes with the attempt to treat the 1.3 apxs.pl as 2.0, complete
> with the same -D APACHE2.
Ken,
I had a slightly different variation of sticky preferences problems over
the weekend. I found preferences stored in the fo
Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> it all boils down to TestConfigParse::httpd_version()
glad to know it's somewhat identified.
> that (or similar foo) will happen when you try to test first against 2.0 and
> then against 1.3, regardless of win32 vs unix. at least that's been my
> experience.
>
> try f
On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 05:27:16PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> This sounds reasonable to me, did it ever get committed?
I imagine you asked the flood developers but I just did a cvs diff and
this patch was not committed.
Philippe
This sounds reasonable to me, did it ever get committed?
-aaron
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:44:15AM +0100, Philippe Marzouk wrote:
> I needed to be able to set the content-type in POST type url, for
> example to send a file so I added a parameter to the url element.
>
> The patch is attached to th
16 matches
Mail list logo
