> You can report problems on the CentOS bug tracker at: > http://bugs.centos.org/ Umm, as I said, I couldn't sign up to file a bug report. Nope, still broken. APPLICATION ERROR #2800 Invalid form security token. Did you submit the form twice by accident? > If the problem is reproducible in RHEL as well, you might > as well report it directly at: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ I don't have an RHEL to test I use Debian at home, but thanks for the link, since it is the same source according to Johnny below. > > I feel like it's pointless to ask why don't > > distributions upgrade within the minor revision number > > of the stable 2.2 series anyway. 2.2.3 is certainly not > > as "stable" as 2.2.11 and the API is supposed to be the > > same. Oh right the "big picture." :-( > > 2.2.3 in CentOS/RHEL is not the same as 2.2.3 upstream... > it's only the base release after which patches are > applied. The name 2.2.3 is kept because potentially not > all the upstream patches that went to 2.2.11 will go into > CentOS/RHEL's 2.2.3, in theory only security updates are > applied inside a minor OS release and RedHat might decide > to skip some of the patches introduced between 2.2.3 and > 2.2.11 if they believe they are not relevant to their > product. Yeah it doesn't make sense to me why it's an advantage for RedHat to selectively backport patches instead of keeping up what the developers believe is a stable API for all callers. It's the same corporate cargo cult they were in when they made the mod_perl1 "compatibility" interface for Apache2... just made life harder for everyone in the end, if I'd wanted to use 1.3 handler API I would have installed 1.3... but that is ancient history. > Second: from that link it seems that you have installed > Perl modules directly from CPAN. Is that true? If you did > and your system broke, well, you got to keep the pieces... > It's known that CPAN modules and RPM modules do not play > together well and will tend to break in upgrades. I > suggest you install a CentOS 5.3 machine from scratch and > try to reproduce the problem there. If it still happens, > then report it to CentOS's bug tracker and/or to the > mailing list. Yes I removed all of perl, made sure all libs were gone and started from scratch. On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, nate wrote: > I don't think I'm able to help on this one but am curious > how much of the components your working with are built > from outside sources? I get the impression that your using > quite a few modules directly from CPAN, are you using > sqlite and mod_perl stuff from outside CentOS as well? I use httpd, httpd-devel, sqlite, sqlite-devel, mod_perl, mod_perl-devel, apr etc. from CentOS. DBD::SQLite is not available in yum so I make it with CPAN. libapreq2 (Apache2::Cookie/Apache2::Request) is not available in yum and does not run the tests right with the CPAN installer as root so I make it from source. On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > Well ... here is what I can tell you: > > http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/backporting/?sc_cid=3093 > > They do roll in bug fixes. I know it can be frustrating > (it is for me to and I build this stuff) ... > > WRT the httpd package ... if you look at the RHEL and > CentOS httpd SRPMs you will see that the change in the > spec file is cosmetic and only controls CentOS being > displayed instead of Red Hat as required by their > trademark restrictions. Excellent info I will swim upstream thank you. Mark