On 03/08/2010 02:00 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I like this approach better in that it allows an administrator to more easily switch between the 2 modules. The packages don't conflict from a file standpoint, only from an operational standpoint. Perhaps an admin decides to have 2 separate Apache servers setup/configured on his system, one to run mod_wsgi applications and the other to run mod_python applications.On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:48:00PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:On Mar 8, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Josh Kayse wrote:I have recently acquired mod_wsgi commit permissions and am going through some of the open bugs for it on bugzilla. According to , and from my testing, mod_wsgi and mod_python conflict resulting in apache segfaulting. The policy currently states that no packages in EPEL may conflict with a package from Red Hat Base. Technically, mod_wsgi and mod_python conflict with each other, but mod_python is optional. I don't think that mod_wsgi should be pulled from EPEL because it is already built for RHEL5 and it is usable as long as mod_python is disabled in apache.  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524120I agree, and think there might be room in the policy for edge cases like this. I'd like to see something added to the policy that would cover this situation, being that mod_python is optional.Maybe anything that can potentially conflict with an optional component in the base operating environment can be installed, but should be installed in such a way that it's not enabled by default. Sysadmin would need to go do something manual to cause breakage on his system.. (or disable / uninstall mod_python). Ray
The problem is that the sysadmin would need to know to go and configure mod_wsgi to explicitly turn it on whereas if the packages conflicted mod_python would need to be removed first.
-josh -- A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? Don't top post: see http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html for more.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature