You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Wilfredo Sanchez <ws...@apple.com> on 1999/05/03 00:28:04 UTC
[PATCH] Mac OS X default path layout
OK, so here's the default path thing again. Patch in question is below.
Arguments against:
1- Platform dependent kludge which makes APACI too inconsistent
and is at least against consistent defaults.
2- If we change the default for Mac OS X, then we should also
do RedHat and other platforms.
3- Different paths are possibly a problem if you use multiple platforms.
4- But I don't like the way my OS vendor lays things out.
I'm obviously simplifying on the expectation that people have read
the prior arguments in full.
As for arguments 1 and 2, I'm all for doing the same for other
platforms so we're consistant. But one thing to consider is that all
"other platforms" (I think?) are Unix platforms. Except for
Windows, and I don't think Windows uses the Apache layout, though I
haven't checked. Mac OS X is not a Unix platform, either, even
though we do have the ability to host Unix in the OS.
I think that the assumption that any one layout works on all
platforms is severely flawed. We don't support DSO on all platforms;
they don't all have it, but certainly we should (by default) for
those that do. So why install files into locations that don't exist
for the platform?
Even so, /usr/local/apache is not going to be a visible location
for most users, and putting the config files there basically makes
them inaccessable to users, which is a drag, since the UI tools they
normally use are also looking elsewhere for those files.
I'm very simpathetic to the consistancy argument, but I also find
the "This is just plain wrong on my platform" argument pretty
compelling. Of course, I'm making it, so there you go. In any case,
platforms are different in some ways, and path locations is one of
them.
Argument 4 is a weak one; this is why the defaults are
configurable in the first place. I don't like the Apache layout, and
think is should be basinshed for all platforms. But I'm not real
passionate about it, since I have other options.
Argument 3 is an interesting one, though. But other things may be
in alternate locations accross platforms as well, so this is hardly
a unique situation. Even Unixen differ significantly in the most
basic ways. OK, my argument is weak, too. What I do know is that
there are straightforward ways to deal with this problem, and they
are well understood, like "make your scripts smarter", or "build all
apaches (apachen?) with your favorite layout, since you still can".
-Fred
Index: configure
===================================================================
RCS file: /CVSRoot/CoreOS/Services/apache/apache/configure,v
retrieving revision 1.15.2.3
diff -u -d -b -w -r1.15.2.3 configure
--- configure 1999/05/02 21:52:01 1.15.2.3
+++ configure 1999/05/02 21:55:02
@@ -273,10 +273,15 @@
*--with-layout=* )
;;
* )
+ case `$aux/GuessOS` in
+ *-apple-rhapsody*) default_layout="Mac OS X Server";;
+ *-apple-macos*) default_layout="Mac OS X Server";;
+ *) default_layout="Apache";;
+ esac
if [ "x$*" = "x" ]; then
- set -- '--with-layout=Apache'
+ set -- --with-layout="${default_layout}"
else
- set -- '--with-layout=Apache' "$@"
+ set -- --with-layout="${default_layout}" "$@"
fi
;;
esac
--
Wilfredo Sanchez, wsanchez@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD
1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: [PATCH] Mac OS X default path layout
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 03:28:04PM -0700, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
> > As for arguments 1 and 2, I'm all for doing the same for other
> > platforms so we're consistant. But one thing to consider is that all
> > "other platforms" (I think?) are Unix platforms. Except for
> > Windows, and I don't think Windows uses the Apache layout, though I
> > haven't checked. Mac OS X is not a Unix platform, either, even
> > though we do have the ability to host Unix in the OS.
>
> What you're arguing (and I guess you *have* been arguing this for a
> while now) is that Mac OS X is really a different beast than Unix.
>
> But, what happens with the different Linuxes that ship with GUIs? I
> don't know Mac OS X well, but AFAICT, this same logic would apply to
> Caldera (and maybe the other Linux distributions as well). They are
> striving to be like Mac OS X; GUI environments with a Unix core.
Let the vendors deal with those issues. That's what they're there for
:-) We can provide tools for them (the layout idea was great for this!),
but we don't have to bulk up Apache to support all 50 Linux
distributions.
You could use the same argument for Mac OS X, but seriously... that
platform simply won't ever use the default, so I don't see that it kills
us to have a different default there.
As to the point about users grabbing stuff from apache.org and updating
their distribution? Well... they better know what they're doing plain
and simple. Personally, I think they should go back to the vendor for
the update so that it fits within their system properly (or at a
minimum, grab an RPM spec file to build their update). If they don't
want a "proper" fit (i.e. those who don't like RedHat layouts or who
want to move it to /usr/local or something), then they can do whatever
they like and our default is just that... the default we've chosen.
+1 on platform specific layouts, where we use a general consensus to
determine what a "platform" means (e.g. *nix is one platform, Mac is
another, Windows a third).
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: [PATCH] Mac OS X default path layout
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 03:28:04PM -0700, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
> As for arguments 1 and 2, I'm all for doing the same for other
> platforms so we're consistant. But one thing to consider is that all
> "other platforms" (I think?) are Unix platforms. Except for
> Windows, and I don't think Windows uses the Apache layout, though I
> haven't checked. Mac OS X is not a Unix platform, either, even
> though we do have the ability to host Unix in the OS.
What you're arguing (and I guess you *have* been arguing this for a
while now) is that Mac OS X is really a different beast than Unix.
But, what happens with the different Linuxes that ship with GUIs? I
don't know Mac OS X well, but AFAICT, this same logic would apply to
Caldera (and maybe the other Linux distributions as well). They are
striving to be like Mac OS X; GUI environments with a Unix core.
But I find myself agreeing more and more with you, anyway.
--
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
"The only thing worse than a few big, regulated telephone monopolies is
few, bigger, unregulated telephone monopolies." - Bob Metcalfe
Re: [PATCH] Mac OS X default path layout
Posted by Ask Bjoern Hansen <as...@valueclick.com>.
On Sun, 2 May 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
...
> haven't checked. Mac OS X is not a Unix platform, either, even
> though we do have the ability to host Unix in the OS.
Good point.
It would work for me if the default on "very different platforms[1]" was
something more sensible to this platform (like Mac OS X), but to me (as an
"application level developer") f.x. RedHat and FreeBSD is similar enough
to make it weird if the apache defaults were different...
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.hyperreal.org/~ask/>
ValueClick - <http://www.valueclick.com/>
Re: [PATCH] Mac OS X default path layout
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@leland.Stanford.EDU>.
On Sun, 2 May 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
> OK, so here's the default path thing again. Patch in question is below.
>
> Arguments against:
>
> 1- Platform dependent kludge which makes APACI too inconsistent
> and is at least against consistent defaults.
Out of curiosity, how does one pronounce "APACI"? I've been pronouncing it
like "Apache", but with more of a velar stop rather than an alveopalatal
affricate. I think that may be wrong, and that this is an issue we should
definitely come to a decision before such silly things as what APACI
actually does ;)
[...]
> As for arguments 1 and 2, I'm all for doing the same for other
> platforms so we're consistant. But one thing to consider is that all
> "other platforms" (I think?) are Unix platforms. Except for
> Windows, and I don't think Windows uses the Apache layout, though I
> haven't checked. Mac OS X is not a Unix platform, either, even
> though we do have the ability to host Unix in the OS.
I'm going to agree here. I think the question is what the user expects to
happen when they run configure. As a Red Hat Linux user, I know that RHL
puts things in odd places. For example, Red Hat puts Perl in /usr/bin. But
when I install Perl, I like it in /usr/local/bin. In fact, Red Hat likes
you to do this - when you use an RPM, you put stuff in /usr, when you
compile your own, it gets put into /usr/local. That way you can update the
RPM packages whole-hog, without disturbing your non-RPM stuff.
The default Unix user will be expecting software to want to install itself
in /usr/local, even though few Unices actually ship with software
installed in /usr/local. I think the default Mac OS user will not be
expecting /usr/local, especially since that directory (assuming Fred's
information is correct) probably will not exist, and it's certainly not
consistent with the MacOS X/NeXT-style directory layouts.
I for one vote +1 on Fred's patch.
--
Alexei Kosut <ak...@cs.stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org/> *