httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Slive <>
Subject Re: Compiling and installing apache
Date Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:08:52 GMT

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote:

> I was today looking at and
> found it to be ... how to put this nicely ... suboptimal. It contains
> little nuggets like "Apache is designed to be configured and run from
> the same set of directories where it is compiled." and "Copy or rename
> these files to the names without the -dist." Was this written back in
> the 1.2 days? I see that it's been worked on some lately, but I'm not
> clear on what's been done to it.
> I see that the 2.0 install docs have gotten a decent overhaul, and I
> was wondering if there were still existing strong opinions around the
> whole Configure/configure thing, or if similar things could be done to
> the 1.3 install docs.

Yes, those docs have sucked for as long as I've been using Apache.
The only significant change I've made is to add a pointer to the INSTALL
file, which is where everyone should be going.

If someone wants to improve things, that would be great.

As far as the politics, as long as you don't remove documentation for the
src/Configure script, I don't think there will be problem.  (I don't think
anyone can deny that "./configure" has won in the "Marketplace".)

Yes, Apache+Packages is certainly hard to install, and that hasn't really
been fixed in 2.0.  In fact, it is probably harder now to install extra
modules, because nobody has really figured out how things will work with
the new autoconf setup.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message