Re: Problems with mod_perl 1.12 (?) and ActivePerl 5.8.1

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:

> Randy Kobes wrote:
>
> >>Yeah, well, the problem is that now there's no 1.99_11 binary on
> >>Winnipeg :( :)
> >
> > At one point I tried keeping multiple versions. This becomes
> > a bit complicated administratively, but more importantly,
> > 99.9% of the time older versions have bugs that are fixed in
> > the current version. This is the main reason I use the cvs
> > version for the builds - however, I make sure that all, or
> > at least the vast majority, of tests pass with a given
> > build. So there's rarely a case of needing an older version,
> > especially for something like mod_perl 2 which is in
> > development.
>
> May be we should keep the binary of the latest release and
> the cvs one? The cvs version may introduce bugs
> non-existing in the last release and may go unnoticed for
> quite some time, if 'make test' doesn't catch them. So if
> winFU is now a viable platform for production use of
> mod_perl 2.0 users will most likely be better off with the
> latest release and not the cvs version.
>
> I'm not sure how ppm can handle that, though. Can it
> ignore the dev versions by some method similar to PAUSE (_
> in the version number)?

That's a good point about the cvs vs last release ...
ppm just downloads the name specified by the package,
so we could make up two packages - "mod_perl" (the current
official release), and "mod_perl-cvs", say.

-- 
best regards,
randy