From: Roy Kimbrell <roy.kimbrell@gm...> - 2005-03-26 16:05:18
It appears that Slash runs on Apache 1 only. If I=B4m wrong about that,
I downloaded the latest slashcode, apache2, and mod_perl 2.0. I
followed the slash installation instructions, however, mod_perl needed
apxs, though earlier in its installation it called the presence of
apxs optional. So I installed apache2 from source and gave the
location of apxs to mod_perl when it asked for it. Then installed
mod_perl 2.0 and (I presume) reinstalled apache 2, giving mod_perl the
location of apxs. I used Bundle::Slash to download the perl modules
from CPAN - ran several times to be sure to get all the modules and
pass the tests.
During the installation of slash, however, slash needed
Apache::ExtUtils (I think that=B4s what it was called). Using perl to
download that module, it appears that it occurs only in mod_perl 1.29
- not in mod_perl 2.0.
This leads me to believe slash works only with apache 1 and its
corresponding mod_perl 1.2x. Is this true?
Using the slash installation instructions, I downloaded and installed
apache1 and mod_perl 1.29 and had an (eventually) successful
installation of slash.
On Mar 26, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Roy Kimbrell wrote:
> It appears that Slash runs on Apache 1 only. If I=B4m wrong about =
> please correct.
As far as I know, that's correct. Last I heard mention of it was
a) Someone on IRC popped on and said they were toying with if I recall=20=
correctly. I don't recall when/who that was.
b) someone submitted an article to http://slashcode.com/ about how they=20=
were updating the portions of the slash src that needed updating for it=20=
to work with Apache 2.0.
So you might want to look on slashcode for more info if you hadn't=20
My slashcode stuff: http://slash.lottadot.com/