Problems getting statically-compiled mod_perl 2.0

It seems that the "getting your feet wet" procedure for building mod
perl version 1 produces a static apache/mod_perl httpd. And static
linking seems to be the prefered method as it loads faster.

However, following the "getting you feet wet" procedure for mod_perl
version 2 does NOT produce a static httpd. And the procedure tells you
to insert a LoadModule command in your httpd.conf file in order to
(dynamically) load the mod_perl module.

The problem is that I can not seem to build a static mod_perl/httpd
for Apache 2 and mod_perl 2. How is this done?

I have hunted around in the documentation for options which relate to
static building, but all I can find is the mod_perl MP_USE_STATIC=1,
and when I use it the "make install" fails because it tries to copy
mod_perl.so !!

I am still following the procedure on the "getting you feet wet" page,
where you "configure", "make" and "make install" apache; then
"configure", "make" and "make install" mod_perl into the same
directory that apache had installed into. Do I need to follow a
different procedure to get a statically compiled mod_perl 2 ?


Thanks

Colin

On 2 Jul 2003 09:34:55 -0700, cbdeja@my-deja.com (-) wrote:

>The problem is that I can not seem to build a static mod_perl/httpd
>for Apache 2 and mod_perl 2. How is this done?

When I looked into it a couple of months ago, it was not possible. I
seem to recall that there were docs that described how to do it, but it
was more of a theoretical "this is how to do it once we support it" kind
of thing. I don't remember where I saw the definitive statement that
static building was not yet supported, but I do know that I saw it
somewhere; might have been in the docs, might have been on the mod_perl
mailing list, might have been scrawled on the wall of the toilet stall
at the local pub. Grain of salt: this info is getting dated, and may be
partly or completely wrong by now.

I'd complain that the mod_perl2 docs need work, but seeing as how people
are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, and since I'd rather
they work on the code and get static linking supported, and considering
that any complaints would probably (quite rightly) be met with "well why
don't YOU do it?", I'll just shut up about it.

--
Greg Schmidt (gregs@trawna.com)
Trawna Publications (http://www.trawna.com/)

Greg Schmidt <gregs@trawna.com> wrote in message news:<v967gvorg50kdmpk5i7d8bsa5b3a7h81pt@4ax.com>. ..
> On 2 Jul 2003 09:34:55 -0700, cbdeja@my-deja.com (-) wrote:
>
> >The problem is that I can not seem to build a static mod_perl/httpd
> >for Apache 2 and mod_perl 2. How is this done?
>
> When I looked into it a couple of months ago, it was not possible. I
> seem to recall that there were docs that described how to do it, but it
> was more of a theoretical "this is how to do it once we support it" kind
> of thing. I don't remember where I saw the definitive statement that
> static building was not yet supported, but I do know that I saw it
> somewhere; might have been in the docs, might have been on the mod_perl
> mailing list, might have been scrawled on the wall of the toilet stall
> at the local pub. Grain of salt: this info is getting dated, and may be
> partly or completely wrong by now.

Thanks Greg. After a lot of twawling the only other mention of this I
could find was

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/arch...he_2.0_P50987/

and mirrors of the same thread at a couple of other addresses. It also
suggests that (as of Feb 2003) static-linking was not yet supported in
mod_perl 2.

I guess I'll just have to build it dynamically for now and keep
checking back with the mod_perl site until static linking appears.

Can anyone confirm if static linking is always likely to produce a
faster loading and executing mod_perl httpd?