You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> on 2006/11/10 22:21:41 UTC
Compiling and Installing document
Hi,
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html
Is "Apache HTTPd" an old name now? It's used in multiple places in
this document in contrast to "Apache HTTP Server".
There's a typo in the "apr/apr-util >= 1.2" section (seperate).
Also in this section, there's no mention of the new
--with-included-apr configure option which makes the example build
instructions obsolete. What's the policy here? Should the example be
removed and replaced with --with-included-apr or should the < 2.2.3
instructions be kept?
The 'Install' section doesn't mention that the user may need to become
root. Is that worth pointing out?
--
noodl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Re: Compiling and Installing document
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On 11/10/06, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> > On 11/10/06, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html
> > >
> > > Is "Apache HTTPd" an old name now? It's used in multiple places in
> > > this document in contrast to "Apache HTTP Server".
> >
> > We've never really settled on how we refer to it in the docs. I find
> > "Apache HTTP Server" to be too long to use in some places, but it is
> > the official name. You'll also find "Apache httpd" and just plain
> > "Apache" in some places. I don't particularly like "Apache HTTPd".
>
> I agree. Is it worth replacing Apache HTTPd with Apache httpd or
> should this wait for a consensus?
>
>
> > > There's a typo in the "apr/apr-util >= 1.2" section (seperate).
> > >
> > > Also in this section, there's no mention of the new
> > > --with-included-apr configure option which makes the example build
> > > instructions obsolete. What's the policy here? Should the example be
> > > removed and replaced with --with-included-apr or should the < 2.2.3
> > > instructions be kept?
> >
> > Put the new method with a note that it is available only starting in 2.2.3.
>
> By note, do you mean a pullout box like the note atop the
> mod_vhost_alias docs? I'm rather new to the style of these docs so
> excuse my silly questions.
>
> Here's a first pop, I'm not too happy with it though.
>
There's no particular problem with that patch; it could be committed
as-is. But if you'd like to improve it, I'd remove the example for
--with-included-apr (since it is just a single option, an example
seems like overkill) and I'd make the <note> into a simple bracketed
expression on the same line. (I reserve <note> for really important
stuff. This is just a quick compat warning.)
Oh, and no point waiting for a consensus on anything in doc land.
Just give it a try and see if people scream ;-)
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Re: Re: Compiling and Installing document
Posted by Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>.
Forgot to point out that this is a patch to the 2.2 branch install.xml
file. In trunk the section on apr has gone on to better places it
seems. Also, I didn't add the needing to be root note yet.
--
noodl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Re: Compiling and Installing document
Posted by Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>.
On 11/10/06, Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html
> >
> > Is "Apache HTTPd" an old name now? It's used in multiple places in
> > this document in contrast to "Apache HTTP Server".
>
> We've never really settled on how we refer to it in the docs. I find
> "Apache HTTP Server" to be too long to use in some places, but it is
> the official name. You'll also find "Apache httpd" and just plain
> "Apache" in some places. I don't particularly like "Apache HTTPd".
I agree. Is it worth replacing Apache HTTPd with Apache httpd or
should this wait for a consensus?
> > There's a typo in the "apr/apr-util >= 1.2" section (seperate).
> >
> > Also in this section, there's no mention of the new
> > --with-included-apr configure option which makes the example build
> > instructions obsolete. What's the policy here? Should the example be
> > removed and replaced with --with-included-apr or should the < 2.2.3
> > instructions be kept?
>
> Put the new method with a note that it is available only starting in 2.2.3.
By note, do you mean a pullout box like the note atop the
mod_vhost_alias docs? I'm rather new to the style of these docs so
excuse my silly questions.
Here's a first pop, I'm not too happy with it though.
Index: install.xml
===================================================================
--- install.xml (revision 473564)
+++ install.xml (working copy)
@@ -165,10 +165,22 @@
<code>apr</code> or <code>apr-util</code>, versions 1.0 or 1.1,
are installed on your system, you must either upgrade your
<code>apr</code>/<code>apr-util</code> installations to
- 1.2, or have httpd use seperate builds. To use the bundled
- <code>apr</code>/<code>apr-util</code> sources for this
- purpose you must install them manually:
+ 1.2, force the use of the bundled libraries or have httpd use
+ separate builds. To use the bundled
+ <code>apr</code>/<code>apr-util</code> sources specify the
+ <code>--with-included-apr</code> option to configure:
+
+ <note><title>Note</title>
+ The --with-included-apr option was added in version 2.2.3
+ </note>
<example>
+ # Force the use of the bundled apr/apr-util<br />
+ ./configure --with-included-apr<br />
+ </example>
+
+ To build Apache HTTPd against a manually installed
+ <code>apr</code>/<code>apr-util</code>:
+ <example>
# Build and install apr 1.2<br />
cd srclib/apr<br/>
./configure --prefix=/usr/local/apr-httpd/<br/>
--
noodl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Compiling and Installing document
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On 11/10/06, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/install.html
>
> Is "Apache HTTPd" an old name now? It's used in multiple places in
> this document in contrast to "Apache HTTP Server".
We've never really settled on how we refer to it in the docs. I find
"Apache HTTP Server" to be too long to use in some places, but it is
the official name. You'll also find "Apache httpd" and just plain
"Apache" in some places. I don't particularly like "Apache HTTPd".
>
> There's a typo in the "apr/apr-util >= 1.2" section (seperate).
>
> Also in this section, there's no mention of the new
> --with-included-apr configure option which makes the example build
> instructions obsolete. What's the policy here? Should the example be
> removed and replaced with --with-included-apr or should the < 2.2.3
> instructions be kept?
Put the new method with a note that it is available only starting in 2.2.3.
>
> The 'Install' section doesn't mention that the user may need to become
> root. Is that worth pointing out?
Sure.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org