mod_wsgi

[Josh Kayse]

On 03/09/2010 05:13 PM, Josh Kayse wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 04:34 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>    
>> On 08/03/10 21:00, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:13:01PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Josh Kayse<josh.kayse at gtri.gatech.edu>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> I have recently acquired mod_wsgi commit permissions and am going through
>>>>> some of the open bugs for it on bugzilla.  According to [1], 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Oi this is where lawyers are born.. because it looks like we are going
>>>> to have enough corner cases that the policy is going to be 10 miles
>>>> long to cover them all.
>>>>
>>>> EPEL packages can Conflict with RHEL-AP packages, but they can't willy
>>>> nilly replace them. I would rather have an explicit conflict with
>>>> mod_wsgi and mod_python in packages than have broken systems. Would a
>>>> Conflicts cause any other issues between two repositories?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Question: For mod_wsgi/mod_python Can we do something like this (note:
>>> I don't know what the real apache syntax would be or if it's quite
>>> possible):
>>>
>>> <IfNotModule mod_python.c>
>>> LoadModule mod_wsgi.so
>>> </IfNotModule>
>>>
>>>        
>> The syntax would be:
>>
>> <IfModule !mod_python.c>
>>        LoadModule wsgi_module modules/mod_wsgi.so
>> </IfModule>
>>
>>
>>      
>>> Note that this can still cause breakage if apache parses mod_python's
>>> LoadModule after mod_wsgi's though.
>>>
>>>        
>> True, but in the out-of-the-box configuration, mod_python would be
>> loaded first from /etc/httpd/conf.d/python.conf and then mod_wsgi from
>> /etc/httpd/conf.d/wsgi.conf based on alphabetical order.
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> epel-devel-list mailing list
>> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>>
>>      
> Would there be any opposition to me going ahead and deploying a new
> version of mod_wsgi (3.1) with an updated wsgi.conf with this configuration?
>
> BJ, would this be an acceptable resolution to your bug?
>
> -josh
>
>    
Aaaaaannnnddddd, upon further testing, it appears mod_wsgi 3.1+ and 
mod_python 3.2.8 can coexist together.  Seeing as how this eliminates 
the conflict I think updating to 3.2 is the best course of action.  Does 
anyone see a problem with this?

-josh

-- 
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

Don't top post: see http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html for more.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2687 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20100309/0b40760e/attachment.p7s>