You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to packagers@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2012/02/21 09:58:51 UTC
Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
A couple of thoughts really quick, and we'll take this to the
packagers@ list because I think it is a better fit to that list
(lots of arcane windows details that might actually be interesting
to .depot/.pkg/.rpm maintainers)...
1. Base on now-current Studio 2010 SP1. Because anything else
now seems silly with free express editions.
2. Replace IS gunk with wix, because wix is free (and goodness).
3. Upgradable from the first incremental release, because the whole
uninstall/reinstall dance sucks.
4. Incorporate soon-current lua/pcre/expat/zlib/OpenSSL, although
several of these are right now in beta, and we should start
shipping once those are released (and get stuck with them for
a few years).
Sorry I haven't had more cycles to post about this subject, I'm know
we have a number of third-party windows distributions, and in fact,
I'd rather this small delay encourage them to jump on the opportunity.
It's pretty obvious that there will be no Oracle, no RedHat release
tomorrow for the shipping OS's.
Also hoping, now that we have a handful of Windows folks here, that we
can define the project's policy so the releases are consistent, even if
the binary RM's are not :)
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/21/2012 2:56 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 11:02 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>> Thanks.
>>
>> However, I would assume that at least httpd.conf needs to be edited, as
>> well as one or more of the .conf files in (for me) /etc/httpd/extra
>> directory.
>
> My working list is that the entire contents of these directories are
> volatile to administrator edits (each expressed as a rel_ and exp_
> prefixed ./configure variable);
>
> sysconfdir
> htdocsdir
> errordir
>
> Although errordir contents should be upgraded when new releases come out,
> it is set up to allow customization of errordir\include\ directory contents
> for branding, etc.
>
> And these directories are volatile and subject to runtime modification;
>
> logfiledir
> runtimedir
>
> The contents of others such as icons, manual, include, lib, bin aren't
> subject to modification except for some path correction during install.
And if you are modestly fluent in rpm.spec (or can follow man pages),
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/build/rpm/httpd.spec.in
might be another useful resource.
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/21/2012 11:02 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> However, I would assume that at least httpd.conf needs to be edited, as
> well as one or more of the .conf files in (for me) /etc/httpd/extra
> directory.
My working list is that the entire contents of these directories are
volatile to administrator edits (each expressed as a rel_ and exp_
prefixed ./configure variable);
sysconfdir
htdocsdir
errordir
Although errordir contents should be upgraded when new releases come out,
it is set up to allow customization of errordir\include\ directory contents
for branding, etc.
And these directories are volatile and subject to runtime modification;
logfiledir
runtimedir
The contents of others such as icons, manual, include, lib, bin aren't
subject to modification except for some path correction during install.
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
Thanks.
However, I would assume that at least httpd.conf needs to be edited, as
well as one or more of the .conf files in (for me) /etc/httpd/extra
directory.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 10:40 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> > re: 5, I do not know about conventions on linux distros, and even less on
> > windows 7 conventions, but what I am looking to do for AIX is separate
> the
> > required parts )the real rte aka run-time-env with nice to have files
> such
> > as manual and man pages, and maybe other items.
> >
> > I would very much appreciate "guidance" regarding how the devs look at
> the
> > different directories, especially what could/should be loaded read-only
> > (such as executables and modules and could be md5 signed each
> individually
> > as an additional element of a trusted installation, and files that are
> > expected to be edited or modified (such as httpd.conf).
>
> Here is how the various linux distros individually handled this;
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout
>
> [nothing should need to be edited once you have correctly set up the
> various
> ./configure path variables]
>
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/21/2012 10:40 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> re: 5, I do not know about conventions on linux distros, and even less on
> windows 7 conventions, but what I am looking to do for AIX is separate the
> required parts )the real rte aka run-time-env with nice to have files such
> as manual and man pages, and maybe other items.
>
> I would very much appreciate "guidance" regarding how the devs look at the
> different directories, especially what could/should be loaded read-only
> (such as executables and modules and could be md5 signed each individually
> as an additional element of a trusted installation, and files that are
> expected to be edited or modified (such as httpd.conf).
Here is how the various linux distros individually handled this;
http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout
[nothing should need to be edited once you have correctly set up the various
./configure path variables]
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
re: 5, I do not know about conventions on linux distros, and even less on
windows 7 conventions, but what I am looking to do for AIX is separate the
required parts )the real rte aka run-time-env with nice to have files such
as manual and man pages, and maybe other items.
I would very much appreciate "guidance" regarding how the devs look at the
different directories, especially what could/should be loaded read-only
(such as executables and modules and could be md5 signed each individually
as an additional element of a trusted installation, and files that are
expected to be edited or modified (such as httpd.conf).
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 2:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > A couple of thoughts really quick, and we'll take this to the
> > packagers@ list because I think it is a better fit to that list
> > (lots of arcane windows details that might actually be interesting
> > to .depot/.pkg/.rpm maintainers)...
> >
> > 1. Base on now-current Studio 2010 SP1. Because anything else
> > now seems silly with free express editions.
> >
> > 2. Replace IS gunk with wix, because wix is free (and goodness).
> >
> > 3. Upgradable from the first incremental release, because the whole
> > uninstall/reinstall dance sucks.
> >
> > 4. Incorporate soon-current lua/pcre/expat/zlib/OpenSSL, although
> > several of these are right now in beta, and we should start
> > shipping once those are released (and get stuck with them for
> > a few years).
>
> I had missed 5. sorry...
>
> 5. Install conf/ log/ htdocs/ et al OUTSIDE of C:\Program Files[ (x86)]\
>
> I think 5. is most critical. We are overdue to move this to AppData.
> It isn't trivial but I don't want 'us' to be stuck explaining UAC issues
> for the next 10 yrs.
>
>
>
>
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/21/2012 2:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A couple of thoughts really quick, and we'll take this to the
> packagers@ list because I think it is a better fit to that list
> (lots of arcane windows details that might actually be interesting
> to .depot/.pkg/.rpm maintainers)...
>
> 1. Base on now-current Studio 2010 SP1. Because anything else
> now seems silly with free express editions.
>
> 2. Replace IS gunk with wix, because wix is free (and goodness).
>
> 3. Upgradable from the first incremental release, because the whole
> uninstall/reinstall dance sucks.
>
> 4. Incorporate soon-current lua/pcre/expat/zlib/OpenSSL, although
> several of these are right now in beta, and we should start
> shipping once those are released (and get stuck with them for
> a few years).
I had missed 5. sorry...
5. Install conf/ log/ htdocs/ et al OUTSIDE of C:\Program Files[ (x86)]\
I think 5. is most critical. We are overdue to move this to AppData.
It isn't trivial but I don't want 'us' to be stuck explaining UAC issues
for the next 10 yrs.
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/21/2012 4:08 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2012, at 10:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Sorry I haven't had more cycles to post about this subject, I'm know
>> we have a number of third-party windows distributions, and in fact,
>> I'd rather this small delay encourage them to jump on the opportunity.
>> It's pretty obvious that there will be no Oracle, no RedHat release
>> tomorrow for the shipping OS's.
>
> It must be pointed out however that people on Redhat (and derivatives) are able to roll their own RPMs for deployment today should they choose to do so by following the instructions here:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/rpm.html
Which is apropos of?
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/win_compiling.html#workspacebuild
describes how to convert. Others have written better guides, I'm afraid
that I and the docs team haven't been all that fast to incorporate all of
the suggested edits.
But I must ask, why must it be pointed out? Because you have a point to make?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/21/2012 4:08 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> It must be pointed out however that people on Redhat (and derivatives) are able to roll their own RPMs for deployment today should they choose to do so by following the instructions here:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/rpm.html
And likewise, there are something like 5 definitive guides to
converting our windows build files to your modern visual studio.
However, Studio 2010 won't actually read .dsp/.dsw files, which
is why I had proposed trashing them (to a resounding chorus of
'no, not so fast!')
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 21 Feb 2012, at 10:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Sorry I haven't had more cycles to post about this subject, I'm know
> we have a number of third-party windows distributions, and in fact,
> I'd rather this small delay encourage them to jump on the opportunity.
> It's pretty obvious that there will be no Oracle, no RedHat release
> tomorrow for the shipping OS's.
It must be pointed out however that people on Redhat (and derivatives) are able to roll their own RPMs for deployment today should they choose to do so by following the instructions here:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/rpm.html
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 21 Feb 2012, at 10:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Sorry I haven't had more cycles to post about this subject, I'm know
> we have a number of third-party windows distributions, and in fact,
> I'd rather this small delay encourage them to jump on the opportunity.
> It's pretty obvious that there will be no Oracle, no RedHat release
> tomorrow for the shipping OS's.
It must be pointed out however that people on Redhat (and derivatives) are able to roll their own RPMs for deployment today should they choose to do so by following the instructions here:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/rpm.html
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Binary windows 2.4.x distribution
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/21/2012 2:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A couple of thoughts really quick, and we'll take this to the
> packagers@ list because I think it is a better fit to that list
> (lots of arcane windows details that might actually be interesting
> to .depot/.pkg/.rpm maintainers)...
>
> 1. Base on now-current Studio 2010 SP1. Because anything else
> now seems silly with free express editions.
>
> 2. Replace IS gunk with wix, because wix is free (and goodness).
>
> 3. Upgradable from the first incremental release, because the whole
> uninstall/reinstall dance sucks.
>
> 4. Incorporate soon-current lua/pcre/expat/zlib/OpenSSL, although
> several of these are right now in beta, and we should start
> shipping once those are released (and get stuck with them for
> a few years).
I had missed 5. sorry...
5. Install conf/ log/ htdocs/ et al OUTSIDE of C:\Program Files[ (x86)]\
I think 5. is most critical. We are overdue to move this to AppData.
It isn't trivial but I don't want 'us' to be stuck explaining UAC issues
for the next 10 yrs.