Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:40:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Andy Harrison <ah4@mlz.us> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bricolage + mod_perl. Comments welcomed. Message-ID: <XFMail.20030911154018.ah4@mlz.us> In-Reply-To: <646633312.1063314034@sauron.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On 11-Sep-2003, Mathieu Arnold wrote message "Re: Bricolage + mod_perl. Comments welcomed." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >| I was thinking of creating something like the www/apache13-ssl port >| and name it apache13-mod_perl. Is this the appropiate way to solve >| the problem? Does anyone know of any other ports or programs that >| might benefit (or need) a statically compiled version of >| mod_perl+apache. >| >| Any comments or suggestions, especially by committers, are welcome. > > Why does it need mod_perl statically linked into apache ? > There are known leaks with it as a dso, but it does not harm to have it > that way. I installed bricolage once to give it a try. IIRC, they cited stability issues as their reasons, I don't recall the specifics. So I just edited the script so it wouldn't detect for mod_perl anymore and installed bricolage that way. ~~ Andy Harrison (full headers for details) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.8 iQCVAwUBP2DPoVPEkLgodAWVAQHY1QP/ZUBBHZUFiDOivmpSjh9Venacpczn/5Qc et5dF5BU4HRLxyWspSu/v6HZ9t42WzoTLS6uCQnymQPEedKenFFVzsmG9F3DkI3P Y4m/hvmgJr5quMg9zupj5enu+0Rkv+lESaorSquVyV+gdcoM73bXESxzJ7XVbBdL 8U3QyMwmowI= =JhQH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030911154018.ah4>