On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 03:19, Daniel de Kok wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 21:04 -0400, Kurt Hansen wrote: > > This wasn't just a one-time thing, but happened several times from > > RH7.X on up through FC2. This proved to me that Red Hat was unable > > to support the components of their system that were most critical to > > me. > > These are products from the "consumer line" of the upstream vendor. For > a fair judgment of their products, it is better to look at their > enterprise offerings. I think you are missing the point that there was one version of mod_perl 1.x shipped as an update to RH7.3 that was actually usable. It was broken again in RH8 and subsequent versions including went into RHEL 3 and 4. I think the 2.x version may finally be usable again in FC5 but I haven't really done stress testing. > Besides that my experience is that they are very > willing to fix bugs if you send good bug reports and/or patches. So, did > you try an enterprise version, and if so, did you raise these issues to > the upstream vendor? The problem is that the 1.99x versions of mod_perl included in the EL distros (and thus Centos) wasn't really release versions and thus even if built properly aren't suitable for current applications. The 'upstream vendor' has a policy against making behavior-changing updates so when you need a change like this you are out of luck. > > I was also concerned that Red Hat would balk at supporting other parts > > of my systems if I had deviated from the supplied software. So, it > > didn't seem I would be getting any value for my thousands. > > Yeah. If you don't require the support, it is a shame to waste that > money. Centos is the answer to a lot of problems. Just not this one unless someone were to say, rebuild the fedora FC5 versions of apache, perl, and mod_perl under Centos and put it in a yum repository somewhere in a way that updates would push through for people who want them. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com