You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au> on 2002/07/25 17:46:19 UTC

mod_jk/tomcat RPM configuration

Peter B. West wrote:
> 
> I am installing tomcat 4.0.4 with apache-1.3.23-11 rpms from redhat on a 
> redhat 7.3 system.  I had previously installed a beta version of 3.3 
> with the then-current apache, and I had the transfer of control from 
> apache to tomcat via an ajp13 connector working.  That was a while ago.
> 

> Why does the documentation refere to libexec/mod_*.so in a number of 
> places?  There is no libexec directory anywhere in my installation of 
> apache.  Neither is there a modules directory, but that doesn't stop the 
> httpd.conf file referring to "modules/mod_*.so".  Are both "modules" and 
> "libexec" translated in the bowels of apache?  Should I replace all 
> doumentation references to libexec/mod_*.so for unix systems with 
> modules/mod_*.so?

Ok, having seen some other postings, I realise that apache as compiled 
on unix boxes puts modules in /usr/local/apache/libexec, e.g.,
/usr/local/apache/libexec/mod_jk.so.

Presumably then, an apache installation is aware of the equivalent of 
APACHE_HOME.  The location of the standard modules in the apache RPMs is 
/usr/lib/apache, e.g., /usr/lib/apache/mod_mime.so.  Does this mean that 
the references to, e.g., libexec/mod_jk.so should be replaced with 
relative paths mod_jk.so, or with absolute paths?  How then are the 
LoadModule commands in httpd.conf, which specify modules/mod_*.so, 
interpreted?

> One of the references to libexec/mod_jk.so is in the section on "Using 
> ApacheConfig" inthe AJP config page.  The modJk attribute to the 
> Listener element within the Host element is said to have this default. 
> modJk (and , I think workersConfig) is on the apache side of the 
> equation, isn't it?  Yet modJk and workersConfig (default 
> "conf/jk/workers.properties") are supposedly referenced relative to 
> CATALINA_HOME by default.  This doesn't seem to make sense.  What is the 
> rationale for this?

-- 
Peter B. West  pbwest@powerup.com.au  http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>