RT 3.4.4 and mod_perl1.99

-----Original Message-----
From: rt-users-bounces@lists.bestpractical.com
[mailto:rt-users-bounces@lists.bestpractical.com]On Behalf Of Stewart
Tranter
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:55 AM
To: rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com; Jesse Vincent
Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.4.4 and mod_perl1.99 - clarification

Sorry to bring this back up, but I’m very confused now by this whole
topic. Our production server, is happily running the following:

On a new test server we have tried the following, which
should work and
doesn’t:

Fedora Core 4
Apache/2.0.54
mod_perl-2.0.0-0.rc5.3
RT 3.4.4 or RT 3.5.2 (tried both)

We get the “usual”:

[Wed Sep 14 16:05:22 2005] [error] RT does not support mod_perl 1.99.
Please upgrade to mod_perl 2.0 at /opt/rt3/bin/webmux.pl line

That is rather confusing. In webmux.pl it clearly says:

die "RT does not support mod_perl 1.99. Please upgrade to mod_perl 2.0"
  if $ENV{'MOD_PERL'}
  and $ENV{'MOD_PERL'} =~ m{mod_perl/(?:1\.9)};

This implies that you should only se this error if you have mod_perl and the mod_perl version gets set to something that includes 1.9. I’d like to think that mod_perl2.0.0-0.rc5.3 doesn’t set the MOD_PERL environment variable to 1.9. Is it possible that you have two versions of mod_perl installed? Also any chance of upgrading mod_perl to 2.01 release?

-Steve

Steven E. Ames wrote:

That is rather confusing. In webmux.pl it clearly says:

die "RT does not support mod_perl 1.99. Please upgrade to mod_perl 2.0"
  if $ENV{'MOD_PERL'}
  and $ENV{'MOD_PERL'} =~ m{mod_perl/(?:1\.9)};

This implies that you should only se this error if you have mod_perl and the mod_perl version gets set to something that includes 1.9. I’d like to think that mod_perl2.0.0-0.rc5.3 doesn’t set the MOD_PERL environment variable to 1.9. Is it possible that you have two versions of mod_perl installed? Also any chance of upgrading mod_perl to 2.01 release?

-Steve

Interesting. I’ve just done a bit more debugging, adding a few lines to
webmux.pl. It seems to think we have mod_perl/1.999.22. Running an
“rpm -qa mod_perl” gives the result: “mod_perl-2.0.0-0.rc5.3”. A bug
with this version of mod_perl perhaps? There are definitely no other
mod_perl versions installed and AFAIK the FC4 was installed from
standard install discs.

Stewart
Stewart Tranter
Computing Services
Loughborough University

E: s.g.tranter@lboro.ac.uk
W: IT Services | Loughborough University
T: +44 (0) 1509 223719
F: +44 (0) 1509 223989

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Tranter [mailto:S.G.Tranter@lboro.ac.uk]
Interesting. I’ve just done a bit more debugging, adding a
few lines to
webmux.pl. It seems to think we have mod_perl/1.999.22. Running an
“rpm -qa mod_perl” gives the result:
“mod_perl-2.0.0-0.rc5.3”. A bug
with this version of mod_perl perhaps? There are definitely no other
mod_perl versions installed and AFAIK the FC4 was installed from
standard install discs.

Since your in there tweaking… could you try changing the check to:

 die "RT does not support mod_perl 1.99. Please upgrade to mod_perl 2.0"
   if $ENV{'MOD_PERL'};

That is to say remove the version check entirely. I’m not sure why RT is checking for 1.9 instead of just saying:

$mod_perl::VERSION >= 2.0;

1.99.22 was when the big API change occurred… so it may actually work. Then again it may not. If it doesn’t you’ll want to upgrade to mod_perl 2.01.

Stewart Tranter wrote:

Interesting. I’ve just done a bit more debugging, adding a few lines to
webmux.pl. It seems to think we have mod_perl/1.999.22. Running an
“rpm -qa mod_perl” gives the result: “mod_perl-2.0.0-0.rc5.3”. A bug
with this version of mod_perl perhaps? There are definitely no other
mod_perl versions installed and AFAIK the FC4 was installed from
standard install discs.

Nothing so strange. In order to keep the version number constantly
growing, they choose to number all prerelease versions 1.99x.x
That is, it’s not that easy (from a program perspective) to order
version strings like 2.0-b5, 2.0-rc5 and 2.0: you have to give special
meanings to ‘b’, ‘a’, ‘rc’. Much better 1.99.5 (a.k.a. beta5) < 1.999.22
(a.k.a. rc5) < 2.0

The versioned name of the package itself has nothing to do with the
numeric version embedded in the perl module, it’s just a packaging
parameter.

Angelo Turetta

Steven E. Ames wrote:

Since your in there tweaking… could you try changing the check to:

 die "RT does not support mod_perl 1.99. Please upgrade to mod_perl 2.0"
   if $ENV{'MOD_PERL'};

That is to say remove the version check entirely. I’m not sure why RT is checking for 1.9 instead of just saying:

$mod_perl::VERSION >= 2.0;

1.99.22 was when the big API change occurred… so it may actually work. Then again it may not. If it doesn’t you’ll want to upgrade to mod_perl 2.01.

Well, I removed the check and it works! Or it seems to at least, all
pages seem to load fine, no errors :slight_smile: Am I in for some nasty suprises
in the future, or can I consider this a “stable” test system?

Stewart
Stewart Tranter
Computing Services
Loughborough University

E: s.g.tranter@lboro.ac.uk
W: IT Services | Loughborough University
T: +44 (0) 1509 223719
F: +44 (0) 1509 223989

Steven E. Ames wrote:

Since your in there tweaking… could you try changing the check to:

 die "RT does not support mod_perl 1.99. Please upgrade 

to mod_perl 2.0"

   if $ENV{'MOD_PERL'};

That is to say remove the version check entirely. I’m not
sure why RT is checking for 1.9 instead of just saying:

$mod_perl::VERSION >= 2.0;

1.99.22 was when the big API change occurred… so it may
actually work. Then again it may not. If it doesn’t you’ll
want to upgrade to mod_perl 2.01.

Well, I removed the check and it works! Or it seems to at least, all
pages seem to load fine, no errors :slight_smile: Am I in for some nasty
suprises
in the future, or can I consider this a “stable” test system?

I think your going to be OK. 1.99.22 was when the API change occurred. The only real problem you could bump into would be that some other piece of software checks version the way RT is.

Would suggest that RT change the check to

$mod_perl::VERSION >= 1.99.22. That would cover your case and this bit of confusion.

-Steve