You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> on 2001/08/22 01:55:55 UTC
Compiling and installing apache
I was today looking at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/install.html 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.
The reason I ask this is that I heard yet another comment today about
how Apache is hard to install, if all you have to go on is the
documentation. I found this a rather disturbing comment. I've also
heard more than once that installing mod_perl with Apache is
incredibly difficult, and I believed this for a rather long time also.
But it's really quite difficult.
Obviously, we need to do something about this, because if people can't
install it, then they can't use it
Can we get this put on the STATUS list? I suppose that there are
political issues involved, but I'm not particular sure that it matters
a whole lot. It's important that we remove impedences keeping people
from using it. And this installation doc, which is completely out of
sync with the INSTALL file in the source tarball, is not winning us
any friends.
--
And everyone said, "If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve -
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!"
(The Jumblies, by Edward Lear)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: apache-docs-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: apache-docs-help@apache.org
Re: Compiling and installing apache
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> > I was today looking at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/install.html 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.
Seems to me that starting with the INSTALL file from the root of the
tarball would be the best thing that we could do. It is accurate, has
good examples, and is pretty thorough. Make sense?
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
Author - Apache Server Unleashed - http://www.apacheunleashed.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: apache-docs-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: apache-docs-help@apache.org
Re: Compiling and installing apache
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > Yes, Apache+Packages is certainly hard to install,
>
> Yeah, but it's not. Particularly mod_perl, which is, if you believe
> the reports, installed on a majority (ie >50%) of Apache servers.
> (Netcraft.)
Except most people with it installed have probably installed some random
third party distribution bundled with their OS that:
1. repackages Apache in sometimes odd ways
2. adds "features"
3. adds bugs
4. puts a lot of stuff on the server that the user doesn't know is there
and doesn't know is not "apache"
>
> For a mod_perl install, you go into the mod_perl directory, and type:
>
> perl Makefile.PL DO_HTTPD=1 EVERYTHING=1
> make
> make test
> make install
>
> That's it. Really, that's all.
> If you want a more complex Apache install, you ./configure in the
> Apache directory first.
>
> Perhaps there's a certain bravado to be gained by making it seem
> harder, but I'm not seeing it.
_IF_ you have the right versions, _IF_ they are compatible, _IF_ there
are no freaky OS dependent issues, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: apache-docs-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: apache-docs-help@apache.org
Re: Compiling and installing apache
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Yes, Apache+Packages is certainly hard to install,
Yeah, but it's not. Particularly mod_perl, which is, if you believe
the reports, installed on a majority (ie >50%) of Apache servers.
(Netcraft.)
For a mod_perl install, you go into the mod_perl directory, and type:
perl Makefile.PL DO_HTTPD=1 EVERYTHING=1
make
make test
make install
That's it. Really, that's all.
If you want a more complex Apache install, you ./configure in the
Apache directory first.
Perhaps there's a certain bravado to be gained by making it seem
harder, but I'm not seeing it.
Likewise with SSL, from what I've experienced, although there are
better reasons for making that seem harder than it really is.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://geeks.cre8tivegroup.com/ --- Work
http://www.rcbowen.com/ --- Play
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: apache-docs-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: apache-docs-help@apache.org
Re: Compiling and installing apache
Posted by Joshua Slive <sl...@commerce.ubc.ca>.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I was today looking at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/install.html 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.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: apache-docs-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: apache-docs-help@apache.org