[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

apache-perl not behaving as apache + mod_perl (mainly for apache-perl users/admins)



Hi all,
	after investigating

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=104268

we figured that the only way to fix this problem is to make apache-perl
behaving as apache + mod_perl.

What does this mean. The way in which modules are loaded in apache* is
important as many of you already know.
(considering the default configs)

apache-perl order (*):
http_core.c
mod_so.c
mod_macro.c
mod_perl.c
/etc/apache-perl/modules.conf

apache + mod_perl (*):
http_core.c
mod_so.c
mod_macro.c
/etc/apache-perl/modules.conf (and somewhere in there your mod_perl
loaded after mod_autoindex - as it should be)

(*) the order is a bit complex to explain a few words but you can refer to
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/core.html#addmodule for an explanation,
since there is an important difference from the way in which apache loads
them and pass control to them.

This difference makes apache-perl executing several modules before passing
the control to mod_perl (even if statically compiled) and we can see
effects such as the one described in the bug.

Now in order to fix the bug the only approch we can use is to implement a
few changes inside modules.conf in order to put mod_perl at the same
execution priority in apache-perl as in apache + mod_perl. (note that it
won't require any user manual editing or so)

My main concern now is to know from the community how many "hacks" and
"workaround" to this bug are we going to break in order to standardize the
packages and fix this bug???? (probably also another one.. but let see one
thing at a time).

I would seriously appreciate feedback from apache-perl users asap.

Thanks a lot
Fabio

PS If i will not hear anything within a week i will proceed with the fix.

-- 
Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
"We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues

http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp00004.html



Reply to: