httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: Script for building binary tarballs
Date Tue, 09 Jun 1998 01:11:45 GMT
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> Yes, suexec and when you move it elsewhere you have at least to provide -d or
> -f options to httpd, etc. And the paths inside httpd.conf are for
> /usr/local/share/htdocs etc. Sure, it can be used elsewhere but not without
> manual tweaking. That's the reason why I personally would like to see
> usr/local in the tarballs because this shows that that's the compiled prefix.

So the goal is to have an httpd that you can start with
just './httpd' and it will find everything?  That's a
reasonable thing to attempt, but that's not what I got
from your description, which is why I asked.  My fault.
I'll just point out that installing/upgrading Apache
*always* requires some manual tweaks of some sort, and
probably always will.  But minimising them is good.
If the "usr/local" relative path is what's compiled in,
it sounds as though the cwd when doing the "./httpd"
is of critical importance.  I'm very tired, though,
and possibly missing something.

> Puhhhh... feel free to provide one, yourself ;-) I just hacked the
> with Marc for 1.2.x. And now for 1.3.0 I looked at the stuff and though it can
> be done easier and a little bit more straight-foreward. Although the script
> uses APACI I never said that "APACI cures all ills". Take my version or
> provide a better one, Ken. But please don't flame me because I provided my
> variant.

Ralf, in no way did I intend to flame you nor have I ever.
If I've given you that impression, I'm sorry - it's not
intentional.  But the decision was made months ago not
to do an autoconf interface for 1.3, and not until 2.0.
You created APACI as an autoconf-like interface, which
is good and especially helpful to those of us who aren't
familiar with the autoconf way of doing things.  I'm just
noticing that this autoconf-like thing shows up all over
the place when we said we weren't going to do autoconf for
1.3.  But perhaps my memory is faulty - it happens a lot.

>                                                            And unless
> someone other jumps in and creates a different (and of course better) variant,
> I see no reason why I should not post my own variant (which, of course, is the
> way I personally like it).
> I'm not sure what the real reason is that you are such sensible about
> solutions posted by me (perhaps my solutions are always not really good or too
> restrictive or whatever), but please always be constructive, i.e. help
> together to push out the Apache 1.3.0 baby in Brian's timeline.

I *am* trying to be constructive.  I'm asking whether we
should change so many aspects of how we supply our product
within hours-to-days of a major release.  If others feel
it's cool, that's fine with me and I'll shut up - but at
the moment I don't feel entirely comfortable with it myself.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'you are such sensible;' I suspect
from the context that you mean 'you are so sensitive.'  If so,
I decline this nomination too: I'm no more picky - and no less -
about your solutions than anyone else's.

#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member         <>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>

View raw message