Until you have the system and kernel compiling well, I would say that Perl and mod_perl should be considered of lesser importance.
I messed a bit with Linux From Scratch in the past, and I remained impressed by the fact that GCC 3.x hasn't ever been officially supported for kernel compilation. In LFS, in fact, they suggest installing a parallel GCC 2.95.3, which is officially supported by the kernel guys.
While I don't know if this still holds true currently (as I said, I did it some 4-5 months ago), I would certainly be VERY concerned to compile the base system with a brand newly-versioned compiler; I'd rather begin with less pervasive stuff such modules or Perl itself, reversing the path you suggest, using a compiler located in an ad-hoc, out-of-standard paths and probably installing this newly-compiled Perl itself into an isolated branch of the filesystem.
Just my 2c worth tip, anyway.
Update: corrected English syntax in one sentence, thanks blyman.
Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))')
Don't fool yourself.
| [reply] |
That's why I specified a 'mule' system, Flavio. For any system other than a raw throwaway, I agree heartily.
My compatriot who has bee nworking his way up through the 3's on SPARC/Solaris is going to start working with it (4.0) and let me know. He will, of course, use your approach, because the systems he admins have too many $millions riding on them. :D
| [reply] |
Then again, they're already on to 4.1, which I've been building Perl for a while, and its compiler is a good deal smarter in finding C problems.
I understand the fear of x.0.0, but it's not as if it's fresh.
| [reply] |
In the slashdot discussion someone mentioned the new Mac OS X, Tiger, as compiled with GCC 4.0. Though that looks pretty unbelievable to me at first glance, if that proves to be true it would mean that GCC 4.0 is certainly "production quality".
I very much doubt Apple would release such a blockbuster, with resounding trumps, bells and whistles if it wasn't.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
OK, thanks for the details.
| [reply] |