httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cristian Gafton <>
Subject Re: apache/linux modules
Date Tue, 03 Feb 1998 01:49:54 GMT
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> a working Apache Web server with no more bugs than in what *we*
> release.  I recall a lot of reports of strange problems that were

A "lot" ?! Let me tell you what I saw: people complaining about not being
able to compile the mysql stuff or php with minisql and/or postgres and
bitching at us "why RH does not ship PHP with miniSQL enabled". To which
our response was "sorry, to make apache require to have installed postgres
or minisql to make it work it will be absurd". 

Now, if we did have modules...

> eventually traced back to the RedHat-specific distribution.  And
> for the last couple/few releases of RedHat, at that.  I don't know

Saying that about the OS that brought Apache the largest amount of market
share comes naturally. After all, there are millions out there running RH
Linux with apache turned on - how would you expect that the errors
reported and the number of users not being able to figure out something
not to be the high ?

> how many of the resulting "it doesn't work" reports go to RedHat,
> but a distressing number of them come our way.

We do get plenty of them, rest assured. However, I am here in a
development mission, not to defend RH against some statistics.

> Adding value is good.  But the flexibility you tout in the above
> paragraph seems to me to be adding numerous dimensions to how the
> distribution could be screwed up.  Which means more bug reports for us.

To which you can blame us and send them to And
they'll be taken care of there.

> Someone "sticks the module into a directory" and suddenly the server
> starts misbehaving.  Worse, they stick it in the directory before
> starting the server for the first time, so when it breaks it looks
> like it's always been that way.

I am sure that stupid scenarios are numerous, starting with wornly
modifying a config file, etc. You can not rely on the fact that some users
are morons :-)

> new modules requires active work by the Webmaster so its quite aware
> of the change.

And installing a module is not 'active' work ?

Having the server load only modules with a certain compatibility signature
will be one way to protect the server from doing stupid things. 

>  Then there's the potential that the Webmaster will
> make the connexion between the change and the brokenness.  Unlikely,
> I know - but a greater probability, I think, than in the "drop-in
> module" scenario.

That's what the error logs are for.

Cristian Gafton   --   --   Red Hat Software, Inc.
 UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.

View raw message