www-apache-bugdb mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>
Subject Re: general/2889: Inclusion of RPM spec file in CVS/distributions
Date Mon, 24 Aug 1998 04:10:01 GMT
The following reply was made to PR general/2889; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
To: Ross Golder <rossg@cpd.co.uk>
Cc: apbugs@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: general/2889: Inclusion of RPM spec file in CVS/distributions
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 19:35:19 -0700 (PDT)

 On 21 Aug 1998, Ross Golder wrote:
 
 > >Description: I prefer to install Apache as an RPM. I downloaded and
 > installed an excellent 1.3.0 RPM, which included all the important
 > modules compiled as DSOs. All you need to do is install the package
 > and comment out the undesired modules from the httpd.conf (and set up
 > the rest etc). Great! I was a happy bunny.
 > 
 > I then came across a couple of modules that rely on v1.3.1, so
 > naturally I look for a 1.3.1 RPM and just do an upgrade. The 1.3.1
 > RPMs I found didn't contain all the desired modules, and weren't even
 > laid out the same (docs/binaries etc).
 > 
 > Next step, then, is to grab the 1.3.0 spec, 1.3.1 source and update the spec file, and
build my RPM. Great!
 > 
 > I can just picture others around the world having the same dilemma,
 > and going through the same crap. Hence this suggestion.
 > 
 > If we have one common spec file to build from, and if we distributed
 > some Apache-endorsed (?) RPMs at release time, much wasted coding time
 > could be avoided.
 
 The problem is that I don't see peple actually using one common file.
 It seems that every distribution maker wants to change their own things
 to make Apache the way "they" like it, regardless of how the distribution
 is.  
 
 There are also enough differences (eg. paths) between systems that changes
 would have to be made anyway.
 

Mime
View raw message