slashcode-general — This is the general discussion list. Install questions welcome.

Re: [Slashcode-general] error

[Michael J. <mi...@fi...>]

Hi, Chris:

Actually, just that one. I saw this on the site and wonder if it's related:

slash 2.0.0-pre3 Released

posted by pudge on Wednesday April 25, @04:45PM

 Sorry to all of you who just downloaded 2.0.0-pre2; thanks to all of you
who helped us crush the bugs in that release! There were some bad ones
(nothing major, just enough to make the site not work ... ) so we decided to
do one more prerelease. This fixed syntax errors, bad method calls, and
(hopefully) the Makefile for FreeBSD.
So again, we hope to release 2.0.0 next week. Check this out, let us know
what breaks by submitting bugs on SourceForge, and we'll do this. Download
the latest via FTP or HTTP, and read the change log below.


( Read More... | 539 bytes in body | 1 comment )

I reinstalled the pre-3 release and now it's running. There are a few minor
issues, but I want to look at all my configuration information before
commenting.

Thanks!



----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Nandor" <pu...@po...>
To: <sla...@li...>
Cc: <sla...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Slashcode-general] error


> At 17:57 -0700 2001.04.25, Michael Johnson wrote:
> >Slash 1.* worked perfectly on my system so I have been able to install
Slash
> >and all it's deps. Serious problems with Slash 2+ though.
>
> You say "problems," plural.  What other serious problem do you see?
>
> --
> Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
> Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Sla...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general

Re: [Slashcode-general] error

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 17:57 -0700 2001.04.25, Michael Johnson wrote:
>Slash 1.* worked perfectly on my system so I have been able to install Slash
>and all it's deps. Serious problems with Slash 2+ though.

You say "problems," plural.  What other serious problem do you see?

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] error

[Michael J. <mi...@fi...>]

I should clarify, it may be obvious but just in case:

Everything _installs_ fine but when I attempt to run the slashd script from
/etc/rc.d/init.d it fails.

Slash 1.* worked perfectly on my system so I have been able to install Slash
and all it's deps. Serious problems with Slash 2+ though.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Johnson" <mi...@fi...>
To: <sla...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Slashcode-general] error


> I get the following error when trying to install slash 2.0.0-pre3.... I do
> not know that this is a bug---it is very possible that I have erred
> somewhere and would appreciate a bit of assistance:
>
> Wed Apr 25 23:44:50 2001 Starting up Slashd with pid 3562
> Wed Apr 25 23:44:50 2001 Updating Now What? 00/01/25/1236215
> Wed Apr 25 23:44:50 2001 Updating You've Installed Slash! 00/01/25/1430236
> Can't locate object method "sqlTransactionStart" via package
> "DBIx::Password" (perhaps you forgot to load "DBIx::Password"?) at
> /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/i586-linux/Slash/DB/Static/MySQL.pm line
81.
> why am I here? at /usr/local/slash/sbin/slashd line 36
> main::END() called at /usr/local/slash/sbin/slashd line 0
> eval {...} called at /usr/local/slash/sbin/slashd line 0
>
>
> Any assistance would be appreciated. If this is a _bug_ and the problem
> isn't simply sitting at the console, I'll file a bug report.
>
> Thanks,
> -mj
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Sla...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general

Re: [Slashcode-general] error

[Michael J. <mi...@fi...>]

I get the following error when trying to install slash 2.0.0-pre3.... I do
not know that this is a bug---it is very possible that I have erred
somewhere and would appreciate a bit of assistance:

Wed Apr 25 23:44:50 2001 Starting up Slashd with pid 3562
Wed Apr 25 23:44:50 2001 Updating Now What? 00/01/25/1236215
Wed Apr 25 23:44:50 2001 Updating You've Installed Slash! 00/01/25/1430236
Can't locate object method "sqlTransactionStart" via package
"DBIx::Password" (perhaps you forgot to load "DBIx::Password"?) at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/i586-linux/Slash/DB/Static/MySQL.pm line 81.
why am I here? at /usr/local/slash/sbin/slashd line 36
main::END() called at /usr/local/slash/sbin/slashd line 0
eval {...} called at /usr/local/slash/sbin/slashd line 0


Any assistance would be appreciated. If this is a _bug_ and the problem
isn't simply sitting at the console, I'll file a bug report.

Thanks,
-mj

[Slashcode-general] slash-2.0.0-pre3 Released

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

See the story on /code for more information.  Essentially, pre3 was just
released with some bugfixes from yesterday's pre2 release, and we hope to
release 2.0.0 next week.  Get your testing done and bug reports submitted!

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Getting Bender working on RH 7.1

[shane <sh...@lo...>]

At 12:09 PM 4/24/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 24 April 2001 06:32, you wrote:
>
> > I gave up, and went the all-source-built route. Seems to be working like a
> > champ now.
>
>Cool.  I'm also in business, and I didn't even have to do most of what you
>did.  I just somehow left the EVERYTHING=1 out of my mod_perl config, as
>pudge pointed out.

hmm. I'll have to try this later in the week. I've another machine
I can screw around with :)

> > 4) removed perl from the system: perl --nodeps -e perl && rm -fR
> > /usr/lib/perl5 5) installed perl from tarball.
>
>Interesting.  Why exactly did you do that?  I'm using RH's perl-5.6.0 RPM and
>it seems to work.

I did it for two reasons - 1) because everyone is always preaching
that to build it from source is the best, most problem free way to
have it on a box and 2) because I'd never tried it before. I'd
always used perl rpm's.


> > 6) installed cpan and started installing perl bundles/modules/scripts
>
>Did you have any module install problems?  I had a couple/few, but I didn't
>keep a good log so I don't remember what they were.  I'm still not sure if
>all the modules are installed correctly, but the thing works so I guess it's
>close enough. :-)

Yes, there were a few:

AppConfig-1.52
libwww-perl.5.55391
Text-Autoformat-1.04

those were the only ones that I kept notes about, but I'm fairly
certain there were 2 or 3 others that I had to do by hand.
Which, when you think about all the modules that cpan does
correctly... I cannot complain. Thank you for Bundle::Slash!!


> > I got apache compiling and working after I realized I forgot to
> > *remove* Redhat's RPM's of openssl, then installed open_ssl
> > and apache compiled OK.
>
>You shouldn't have to do that.  I didn't compile in mod_ssl, but I'd think
>you could point the Apache config to the OpenSSL files installed by RPM,
>since it's not a module, just a library.
>
>Micah

I agree, but this was the quickest way to get the machine going late last nite.
I'll wipe it and try doing it the w/o it's own perl and w/o messing
with the openssl rpms asap (or do it on another box), because now
I've got lib problems it seems:

$ nslookup lottadot.com
nslookup: error while loading shared libraries: /usr/lib/libdns.so.4: 
undefined symbol: CRYPTO_set_mem_functions

  Shane

Re: [Slashcode-general] Getting Bender working on RH 7.1

[Micah Y. <mi...@ge...>]

On Tuesday 24 April 2001 06:32, you wrote:

> I gave up, and went the all-source-built route. Seems to be working like a
> champ now.

Cool.  I'm also in business, and I didn't even have to do most of what you 
did.  I just somehow left the EVERYTHING=1 out of my mod_perl config, as 
pudge pointed out.

> 4) removed perl from the system: perl --nodeps -e perl && rm -fR
> /usr/lib/perl5 5) installed perl from tarball.

Interesting.  Why exactly did you do that?  I'm using RH's perl-5.6.0 RPM and 
it seems to work.

> 6) installed cpan and started installing perl bundles/modules/scripts

Did you have any module install problems?  I had a couple/few, but I didn't 
keep a good log so I don't remember what they were.  I'm still not sure if 
all the modules are installed correctly, but the thing works so I guess it's 
close enough. :-)

> I got apache compiling and working after I realized I forgot to
> *remove* Redhat's RPM's of openssl, then installed open_ssl
> and apache compiled OK.

You shouldn't have to do that.  I didn't compile in mod_ssl, but I'd think 
you could point the Apache config to the OpenSSL files installed by RPM, 
since it's not a module, just a library.

Micah

[Slashcode-general] help: javascript inside a block

[Francesco O. <pro...@pr...>]

we are developing a new slash site ( http://www.dsmodena.it  ) and we ask
you to solve a problem,

we would like to put inside a block a news scroller made with javascript
but you can see that if you go to an other web page without this block, we
receive a javascript error (you can test it),

how can we solve this trouble?
is it posssible to insert  a variable to tell javascript not to run if
there is not the block?
and if yes, how?

sorry for our english -------

bye,
Francesco (ITALY)

Re: [Slashcode-general] Getting Bender working on RH 7.1

[shane <sh...@lo...>]

At 01:54 PM 4/21/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > Wait a sec - you *upgraded* from 6.2? So you didn't fdisk everything
> > and install fresh?
>
>Nope.  This is just a home system and I didn't want to re-install all my
>software (Corel, Loki Games, etc).  I figure the upgrade is supposed to go
>well, and it did except for this.
>
> > Were you running apache/mod_perl/mysql from RPM or source?
>
>Compiled it from source.  Slash doesn't like the default config.
>
> > Are you trying to run apache/mod_perl/mysql from RPM or source now?
>
>Source again.  First tried it without recompiling, was hoping that would
>work.  It failed saying it couldn't find strict.pm in @INC (which included
>the Perl 5.005 tree).  Not sure why that happened.
>
>Recompiled, using these notes I made for myself.  This is what I did under
>6.2, and it successfully made an httpd with PHP4 and a Slash-happy mod_perl
>working together.  So in case anyone is still having that problem, here's the
>solution:
>-----------
>In PHP directory:
>
>   ./configure --with-pgsql=/usr/local/pgsql --with-mysql=/usr/local/mysql
>--with-apache=/home/micah/slashstuff/apache_1.3.19 --enable-track-vars
>   make
>   make install
>
>   In mod_perl directory:
>
>   perl Makefile.PL APACHE_SRC=/home/micah/slashstuff/apache_1.3.19 
> DO_HTTPD=1
>USE_APACI=1 PERL_MARK_WHERE=1
>   make
>   make install
>
>in Apache directory:
>
>./configure --prefix=/usr/local/apache
>--activate-module=src/modules/php4/libphp4.a
>--activate-module=src/modules/perl/libperl.a
>--activate-module=src/modules/extra/mod_adbanners.o
>make
>make install
>-------------
>
> > I just wiped my server at home from 6.0 (running 2.4.2) to 7.1.
> > For the hell of it I'm trying to run with the RPM setup
> > first, just to see if it works.
>
>Good luck.  Let me know if it does!  I'd certainly prefer using RPM, but
>everything I've read indicates that Slash needs a custom mod_perl compile.

I gave up, and went the all-source-built route. Seems to be working like a
champ now.


> > BTW, incase anyone is reading this, things like zlib and expat
> > are already installed in RPM format with 7.1.
> > I'm installing perl libs now, then gonna go get some breakfest.
> > But if anyone is interested in my findings, let me know, I
> > can post them here or on slashcode.
>
>Please do post them!

Ok, so far I have slash working on two redhat7.1 boxes.
What I did was

1) did a custome install, installed all the devel stuff, did
   NOT install web/ftp/sql servers.
2) immediately made sure the 'wget' and 'tree' commands were
   installed, if not installed them.
3) wgetted all tarballs that I'd need: apache, mod_perl, open_ssl,
    mod_ssl, php4, perl, cpan, openssh, mysql, etc.
4) removed perl from the system: perl --nodeps -e perl && rm -fR /usr/lib/perl5
5) installed perl from tarball.
6) installed cpan and started installing perl bundles/modules/scripts
7) installed mysql
8) installed apache/mod_perl etc.

I got apache compiling and working after I realized I forgot to
*remove* Redhat's RPM's of openssl, then installed open_ssl
and apache compiled OK.

This broke Redhat's rpm's of ssh (client, server, etc).
So I had to install openssh by hand:

rpm -e openssh-server && rpm -e openssh-clients && rpm -e openssh

then, to compile openssh I used the following:

./configure --with-pam --with-tcp-wrappers --sysconfdir=/etc/ssh

then updated bender from CVS, make install UNINST=1 INIT=/etc/rc.d
and now I'm setting up my first slashsite. All seems to ready to roll.

  Shane

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Jim P. <ji...@ya...>]

Joel,

I challenge you to take as many CGI programs that you can find and use
them to build a system compatable w/ Slash.  Let's see if you can do
that in 20 minutes.

Seriously, what you are asking for in Slash (simplicity) is not going
to be found in a *system* as complex as Slash is.  It's just not going
to happen.

-Jim P.

--- Joel Kleppinger <jkl...@ea...> wrote:
> Curiously, how many CGI programs are there?  thousands?  hundreds of 
> thousands?  How many programs require the mod_perl compilation
> options?  one?
> Last I checked, 90% of the people running shared hosts either A)
> weren't 
> geniuses or B) were and charged an arm, a leg, and half your non-tech
> stock 
> portfolio to do anything.  So if it isn't in the distribution, it
> probably 
> isn't on the host.
> 
> Oh, and I was accounting for more of the general audience in
> estimating 20 
> minutes installation of a PHP weblog (however poor the coding of that
> log 
> may be).  I would expect (hope) that you could do it in 5 or less.
> 
> Joel
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Getting Bender working on RH 7.1

[Micah Y. <yo...@ho...>]

> >  perl Makefile.PL APACHE_SRC=/home/micah/slashstuff/apache_1.3.19
> > DO_HTTPD=1 USE_APACI=1 PERL_MARK_WHERE=1
>
> No EVERYTHING=1?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was it!  Boy am I a klutz!  Thank you!!!!!!!!  Dunno how I missed 
putting that in there!

Sometimes it just takes another pair of eyes.

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[jesse h. <je...@ta...>]

just wanted to jump in on this thread. its been interesting as a barometre
of perception. i think the subject line touches upon many aspects, most
noteably of course is the last acronym/word. in the last few months i've
spent a considerable amount of time looking at web hosting companies and
co-lo deals, etc., while at the same time have continued to run a number
of servers under a number of different guises (tao.ca and openflows.org).
in the case of the latter, we recently setup a server dedicated to running
the slashcode, since so many of our clients wanted to run it (these are
existing clients not new ones). in the course of which, we've also
tinkered with the idea of offering "slash hosting" as it were, but are
still unsure about pricing. our existing client base doesn't come to us
for slash per se, but after working with us (around the internet in
general), see what it is (in juxtaposition with other gnu apps) and want
us to implement it for them. these people pay us by the hour, per project,
and the hosting is pretty much free. we prefer to organize revenue
according to our time, and absorb resources/facilities into that cost. it
thus makes it difficult to think of pricing or services that focus just on
hosting...

the reason i like slash is because of the quality factor. its nice to see
a gpl code make it to 2.0. a lot of the economics behind hosting companies
is to do everything as cheaply as possible. reduce the costs, multiply the
tools and space, charge as low as possible. i just think, especially
post-dot-com-mania, that it makes more sense to go for the quality and
complex over the quantity and simplicity.

> >Oh, and I was accounting for more of the general audience in estimating 20
> >minutes installation of a PHP weblog (however poor the coding of that log
> >may be).  I would expect (hope) that you could do it in 5 or less.

phpnuke.org is an obvious example. its really easy to install, comes with
a ton of "themes" that make it easy to customize, and it has a large user
base to contribute back fixes and add-ons etc. now with that said, i think
it has serious limitations. the way i've explained it to people, is that
phpnuke is written/maintained by hobbyists, while slashcode is
written/maintained by professionals. in the former you get easy-to-install
code, in the later you get robust and stable code. i found phpnuke to be
too easy. like so easy it made it hard to really change. it made it hard
to keep up with constant updates. it made it hard to keep up with a users
email list with 100+ traffic a day, 99 of which was en route to /dev/null

> No, it would take me a lot longer, since I don't have mod_php installed
> already, just like a lot of bad Apache builds don't have a good mod_perl
> configuration.

i compile my apache with perl and php, and i'm sure i've got a relatively
poor config ;) but the point is i do get it all working in the end. and
honestly, i'm not much of a techie (writer and activist by trade) nor do i
have the patience to rtfm, nonetheless i'm able to get code running,
humming, and working just fine... last client (their own p3 server) we did
apache, mysql, php/perl, slash, cpan... in definitely less than 20 mins

  1:09pm  up 11 days, 22:08, 11 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.25, 0.31

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Dave H. <da...@ho...>]

Chris Nandor <pu...@po...> writes:

> At 17:02 +0100 2001.04.23, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >Dave // Not a packages fan unless they really, really work.
> 
> So you aren't a packages fan at all, then?  :-)

Hehe, damn, outed.

OK, how about a Slash distro with _only_ the things you need for
Slash? Compiled properly? Um, oh, and with optional Athlon
optimisations. 

Oh, forget it.

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson,                             http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star           http://www.deep-purple.com
	  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
	       ----------------------------------------

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 17:02 +0100 2001.04.23, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>Dave // Not a packages fan unless they really, really work.

So you aren't a packages fan at all, then?  :-)

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 11:02 -0500 2001.04.23, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
>Curiously, how many CGI programs are there?  thousands?  hundreds of
>thousands?  How many programs require the mod_perl compilation options?

Thanks for proving my point.  More people would complain if the bad
configuration broke something popular.  But just because the bad
configuration affects something unpopular ... so?  That is not a reflection
on Slash or mod_perl.  It is, nevertheless, a reflection on poorly
configured systems.


>Oh, and I was accounting for more of the general audience in estimating 20
>minutes installation of a PHP weblog (however poor the coding of that log
>may be).  I would expect (hope) that you could do it in 5 or less.

No, it would take me a lot longer, since I don't have mod_php installed
already, just like a lot of bad Apache builds don't have a good mod_perl
configuration.

Hm, since I don't have PHP installed, so Slash installation is much faster,
does that mean the Slash installation is actually BETTER than a PHP*
program's installation is?  I think so.

I am not sure why this is difficult to see.  Yes, a lot of Apache/mod_perl
configs are messed up and don't work out of the box with Slash.  And yes,
most people I know don't even have PHP installed and can use Slash out of
the box with their configuration.  Each is easier for some than for others.

And I have nothing against trying to make it work better with these poorly
configured mod_perl installations.  But someone else needs to do the work
of figuring out what needs to be changed, because I don't have the
available time.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Dave H. <da...@ho...>]

Chris Nandor <pu...@po...> writes:

> I am talking about anything that Slash relies on that is not available in
> some Distribution X.  I don't know what those things are, since I know
> nothing about what mod_perl capabilites Distribution X has and has not
> provided.

It might be just a case of petitioning Doug McEachern to make your
flags the default in the mod_perl tarball then a distro has to go out
of its way to break it.

Or getting some acoltyes herabouts to get the SRPM (or whatever), fix
the flags and rebuild?

Dave // Not a packages fan unless they really, really work.


-- 
Dave Hodgkinson,                             http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star           http://www.deep-purple.com
	  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
	       ----------------------------------------

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Joel K. <jkl...@ea...>]

It was written:
> >I know nothing I say or do will
> >change that because I understand the reasons for it.  But don't shrug off
> >recompilations by saying "well everyone has to do it."
>
>I don't understand why not.  If your Apache web server were compiled
>without CGI access, wouldn't you turn around and say, well, it should have
>been?  That's what I am saying here.

Curiously, how many CGI programs are there?  thousands?  hundreds of 
thousands?  How many programs require the mod_perl compilation options?  one?
Last I checked, 90% of the people running shared hosts either A) weren't 
geniuses or B) were and charged an arm, a leg, and half your non-tech stock 
portfolio to do anything.  So if it isn't in the distribution, it probably 
isn't on the host.

Oh, and I was accounting for more of the general audience in estimating 20 
minutes installation of a PHP weblog (however poor the coding of that log 
may be).  I would expect (hope) that you could do it in 5 or less.

Joel

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 16:35 +0100 2001.04.23, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>Chris Nandor <pu...@po...> writes:
>
>> At 09:53 -0500 2001.04.23, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
>> >That's not the point.  No self-respecting shared (or even dedicated) web
>> >host isn't going to offer both mod_perl, mod_php, mysql and whatever
>> >else.  The difference is, for slash, you have to have recompile mod_perl
>> >and possibly/probably apache as well.
>>
>> Only because they were not originally compiled to offer the users full
>> functionality.
>
>Are we talking the "EVERYTHING=1" switch here? Or more?

I am talking about anything that Slash relies on that is not available in
some Distribution X.  I don't know what those things are, since I know
nothing about what mod_perl capabilites Distribution X has and has not
provided.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Dave H. <da...@ho...>]

Chris Nandor <pu...@po...> writes:

> At 09:53 -0500 2001.04.23, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
> >That's not the point.  No self-respecting shared (or even dedicated) web
> >host isn't going to offer both mod_perl, mod_php, mysql and whatever
> >else.  The difference is, for slash, you have to have recompile mod_perl
> >and possibly/probably apache as well.
> 
> Only because they were not originally compiled to offer the users full
> functionality.

Are we talking the "EVERYTHING=1" switch here? Or more?

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson,                             http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star           http://www.deep-purple.com
	  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
	       ----------------------------------------

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 09:53 -0500 2001.04.23, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
>That's not the point.  No self-respecting shared (or even dedicated) web
>host isn't going to offer both mod_perl, mod_php, mysql and whatever
>else.  The difference is, for slash, you have to have recompile mod_perl
>and possibly/probably apache as well.

Only because they were not originally compiled to offer the users full
functionality.


>I know nothing I say or do will
>change that because I understand the reasons for it.  But don't shrug off
>recompilations by saying "well everyone has to do it."

I don't understand why not.  If your Apache web server were compiled
without CGI access, wouldn't you turn around and say, well, it should have
been?  That's what I am saying here.


>> >Even though I don't know much perl, I believe that what is holding slash
>> >back from being easier to install is the fact that perl just doesn't come
>> >with all of those modules installed.
>>
>>Nope.  Many of the things required here would be additional modules or code
>>for PHP, too!  The same reasons why you  -- and pretty much everyone --
>>admits that Slash is so much more powerful than PHP* are the same reasons
>>why we have external modules required.
>>
>I don't remember saying slash was more powerful than PHP.  What I said was
>that slash was more powerful than any weblog currently written in PHP.

That is what "PHP*" means.


>I hold to the opinion that pretty stinking good slash-type weblog can be
>created in PHP, if only enough quality effort would be thrown at it.

Sure.  And to get to the Slash level of power, they would need to either
write a ton of custom code, or they would need to include/depend on
external code, which is what we do.

>And I
>think it can be done while still offering PHP-level ease of installation
>(download, untar/gz, create the db, put the settings in a config
>file/script, and run the install script.  Viola.  takes about 20 minutes
>for the whole kit and caboodle... from nothing whatsoever to now working on
>customizing it).

That sounds exactly like the Slash installation process, to me.  Takes
about 20 minutes in my experience, even installing all the modules!  Of
course, that does not include rebuilding mod_perl/Apache, which is often
not necessary anyway.


>My only point is to not misrepresent the situation of installing slash vs.
>installing anything else.

I'm not.  You brought up the other things, and I was answering to them.  I
am simply saying that Slash depends heavily on mod_perl, and if someone
does not give you access to the full capabilities of mod_perl, there's
nothing we can do about it ... unless, as I have asked before (and have not
gotten any responses), someone can go in, find out what in Slash depends on
what is not in Distribution X, so we can consider working around it.  But I
don't know what those things are, and don't have time to figure out.


>As for saying that if a PHP
>slash-quality weblog would require the same sort of installation
>complexities as slash...  well, whatever.

Which installation complexities?  The part about mod_perl?  Well, if
mod_php were hampered in its configuration, then maybe it would, I don't
know.  The part about modules?  That can be recitifed, again, by ANYONE who
wants to take the time to put the modules into a single distribution.  As
for the rest of the installation process, what you described as "PHP-level
ease" is exactly how Slash 2 installs.  You download, unpack, make, create
the DB, run the install script, do a few configs.  Done.

At 09:53 -0500 2001.04.23, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
>That's not the point.  No self-respecting shared (or even dedicated) web
>host isn't going to offer both mod_perl, mod_php, mysql and whatever
>else.  The difference is, for slash, you have to have recompile mod_perl
>and possibly/probably apache as well.

Only because they were not originally compiled to offer the users full
functionality.


>I know nothing I say or do will
>change that because I understand the reasons for it.  But don't shrug off
>recompilations by saying "well everyone has to do it."

I don't understand why not.  If your Apache web server were compiled
without CGI access, wouldn't you turn around and say, well, it should have
been?  That's what I am saying here.


>>for PHP, too!  The same reasons why you  -- and pretty much everyone --
>>admits that Slash is so much more powerful than PHP* are the same reasons
>>why we have external modules required.
>>
>I don't remember saying slash was more powerful than PHP.  What I said was
>that slash was more powerful than any weblog currently written in PHP.

Yes, that is what "PHP*" meant.


>I hold to the opinion that pretty stinking good slash-type weblog can be
>created in PHP, if only enough quality effort would be thrown at it.

Sure.  And to get to the Slash level of power, they would need to either
write a ton of custom code, or they would need to include/depend on
external code, which is what we do.  And as noted before, the additional
modules have nothing to do with ease of installation.  If someone really
had a problem with having to install extra modules, they could put out a
distribution with all of them included.


>And I
>think it can be done while still offering PHP-level ease of installation
>(download, untar/gz, create the db, put the settings in a config
>file/script, and run the install script.  Viola.  takes about 20 minutes
>for the whole kit and caboodle... from nothing whatsoever to now working on
>customizing it).

That sounds like the Slash installation process, to me.  You download,
unpack, make, create the DB, run the install script, do a few configs.
Done.  Takes about 20 minutes in my experience, even with installing all
the modules via the CPAN, which is a single command at the command line
(perl -MCPAN -e 'CPAN::Shell->install("Bundle::Slash")').  Of course, that
does not include rebuilding mod_perl/Apache, which is often not necessary
anyway.


>My only point is to not misrepresent the situation of installing slash vs.
>installing anything else.

I am simply saying that Slash depends heavily on mod_perl, and if someone
does not give you access to the full capabilities of mod_perl, there's
nothing we can do about it.  That is hardly a fault of Slash or a feature
of some other thing, it is the fault of whoever configured mod_perl to have
it hampered.

And, as I have asked before (and have not gotten any responses), someone
can go in, find out what in Slash depends on that is not in Distribution X,
so we can consider working around it.  But I don't know what those things
are that need to be worked around, and don't have available time to figure
out.


>As for saying that if a PHP
>slash-quality weblog would require the same sort of installation
>complexities as slash...  well, whatever.

Which installation complexities?  The part about mod_perl?  Well, if
mod_php were hampered in its configuration, then maybe it would, I don't
know.  The part about modules?  That can be recitifed, again, by ANYONE who
wants to take the time to put the modules into a single distribution.  As
for the rest of the installation process, what you described as "PHP-level
ease" is the same as how Slash 2 installs.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Joel K. <jkl...@ea...>]

At 10:20 AM 4/23/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>At 16:43 -0500 2001.04.20, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
> >Consider this the long way of saying, "You guys make a great product,
> >however, you have little foundation to stand on when someone complains
> >about it being difficult to install."  While it might be nice to have a CD
>
>If you don't already have mod_php compiled in to Apache properly, and don't
>already have the database server installed, then the PHP projects will be
>"difficult" too.
That's not the point.  No self-respecting shared (or even dedicated) web 
host isn't going to offer both mod_perl, mod_php, mysql and whatever 
else.  The difference is, for slash, you have to have recompile mod_perl 
and possibly/probably apache as well.  I know nothing I say or do will 
change that because I understand the reasons for it.  But don't shrug off 
recompilations by saying "well everyone has to do it." Stop thinking about 
this discussion in dedicated server terms, at least for my sake.


> >Even though I don't know much perl, I believe that what is holding slash
> >back from being easier to install is the fact that perl just doesn't come
> >with all of those modules installed.
>
>Nope.  Many of the things required here would be additional modules or code
>for PHP, too!  The same reasons why you  -- and pretty much everyone --
>admits that Slash is so much more powerful than PHP* are the same reasons
>why we have external modules required.
>
I don't remember saying slash was more powerful than PHP.  What I said was 
that slash was more powerful than any weblog currently written in PHP.  I 
hold to the opinion that pretty stinking good slash-type weblog can be 
created in PHP, if only enough quality effort would be thrown at it.  And I 
think it can be done while still offering PHP-level ease of installation 
(download, untar/gz, create the db, put the settings in a config 
file/script, and run the install script.  Viola.  takes about 20 minutes 
for the whole kit and caboodle... from nothing whatsoever to now working on 
customizing it).

I personally don't give a rip about some distribution that might have the 
right stuff already installed and configured for slash.  Practically no web 
host is going to use that distribution anyway.  Now if it gets into RedHat 
8.0, then we're talking.  Sure, I'd love it if more hosts used slack, deb, 
or whatever -real- distro <wink>, but they don't.  So what do I or other 
cheap shared-host users care?

My only point is to not misrepresent the situation of installing slash vs. 
installing anything else.  It's easy to make it sound like it's all 
basically the same when it's not.  As for saying that if a PHP 
slash-quality weblog would require the same sort of installation 
complexities as slash...  well, whatever.

Thanks for your time and ear,

Joel

Re: [Slashcode-general] Limiting sie of Apache Children

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 09:13 -0700 2001.04.21, Brian Aker wrote:
>I just noticed that someone submitted this as a bug on SourceForge
>and I remember that someone else once asked about this on
>the mailing lists.
>
>So you are finding with Bender that over time your caches
>are growing large and that they become larger then
>what you want them to. Instead of worrying about
>Maxrequests per httpd child, worry about
>the memory footprint of the httpd child. There is a CPAN module
>you can install called Apache::SizeLimit that you
>can use to restrict the size of your Apache processes. Just
>be careful to not set this to low. If you do you will
>cause Apache to constantly fork off new children.
>
>If you are interested in keeping an eye on this
>yourself, look at using the module Apache::VMonitor.

Brian, or someone, can this be written up into 1-2 paragraphs for inclusion
in INSTALL?  And further, can someone write up an explanation of how to
limit MySQL number of threads/processes?

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Header Problems

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 19:12 -0500 2001.04.22, unixdown wrote:
>I am having troubles setting a handler for .pl that will work for both
>scripts already on my server and also bender.
>Here is what I am noticing.
>
>If no handler is set for ".pl" my usual perl scripts work fine but bender
>prints in plain text
>If handler is set to "AddHandler perl-script .pl" slashcode will run, but
>my other scripts will print double headers.
>if handler is set to "AddHandler cgi-script .pl" slashcode will not run,
>but my other scripts will run correctly.
>
>Any ides on how to set this so that all my scripts will be happy?

Try moving the AddHandler perl-script .pl stuff to your virtual host
section, in /usr/local/slash/site/SITE/SITE.conf.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Getting Bender working on RH 7.1

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 13:54 -0400 2001.04.21, Micah Yoder wrote:
>Recompiled, using these notes I made for myself.  This is what I did under
>6.2, and it successfully made an httpd with PHP4 and a Slash-happy mod_perl
>working together.  So in case anyone is still having that problem, here's the
>solution:


>  In mod_perl directory:
>
>  perl Makefile.PL APACHE_SRC=/home/micah/slashstuff/apache_1.3.19 DO_HTTPD=1
>USE_APACI=1 PERL_MARK_WHERE=1

No EVERYTHING=1?

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 16:43 -0500 2001.04.20, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
>Consider this the long way of saying, "You guys make a great product,
>however, you have little foundation to stand on when someone complains
>about it being difficult to install."  While it might be nice to have a CD

If you don't already have mod_php compiled in to Apache properly, and don't
already have the database server installed, then the PHP projects will be
"difficult" too.


>Even though I don't know much perl, I believe that what is holding slash
>back from being easier to install is the fact that perl just doesn't come
>with all of those modules installed.

Nope.  Many of the things required here would be additional modules or code
for PHP, too!  The same reasons why you  -- and pretty much everyone --
admits that Slash is so much more powerful than PHP* are the same reasons
why we have external modules required.

We could go the other way, I suppose: reimplement all the code ourselves.
But that is extraordinarily unproductive use of our time.  And we could
bundle it all together, but that can be done by ANYONE.  I have heard many
people say they don't want to install extra modules, and we always say
"someone just needs to make a distribution that already has everything
needed in it," and people expect us to do that, but no one else seems to
think it is worth doing themselves.

I don't really mind that no one is doing it; but I see no room for
complaint that it doesn't exist.  This is an open source project.  The code
is all there.  If there is enough interest in an all-in-one distribution,
then I don't see why no one is doing it.  The only thing I can figure is
that there really isn't that much interest (or that someone is doing it,
but I just don't know about it :-).

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/