You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Henri Gomez <hg...@apache.org> on 2002/09/27 17:51:52 UTC
providing apache2 rpms ?
Now that jk 1.2.0 has been released many users ask me for
Apache 2.0.42 rpms which are located at :
http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/
What about copying it also on httpd.apache.org,
ie http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/linux/
Regards
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 01:21:44AM +0100, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> Since we're on it, and since I did that already to keep up to date our 20+
> Solaris machines... Do we want to include also a proto and a script for
> Solaris?
>
I think that the idea of having an easy way to roll a Solaris package would be really
nice, especially because the only binaries that I can find are apache 1.3.12 on
sunfreeware and a 2.0.39 in dist/httpd/binaries/solaris/. Not that I mind rolling my
own packages, but we might help people move to 2.0 faster this way.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Peter Poeml <po...@suse.de>.
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 05:10:09PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> >I would be more keen to use an official apache RPM than say a Redhat
> >one, as Redhat (and possibly other distros) are rather slow at releasing
> >the latest bugfixes.
> >
> +1 from me.
> I think the only technical issues stopping us are:
> - layout to choose
I think each distro has some version identifier installed like
/etc/SuSE-release, so it wouldn't be hard to make this decision within
the specfile. However I don't know the other identifiers, I only know
/etc/UnitedLinux-release and /etc/SuSE-release :)
> - a method of getting the version number in the spec file.
> (which would need to be part of the buildconf process I think)
Yes, as the specfile would be in CVS, you could create it from spec.in
as part of the build proces..
> the second is important because doing this we could simply allow us to
> do something like:
> rpmbuild --sign -ta <disttarfile>
>
> I'm not sure if it makes a difference on which distribution it was
> actually built on.. maybe the mandrake/redhat/suse guys have some
> suggestions.
If the spec file doesn't use too much "magic", it might be feasible :)
Peter
--
Thought is limitation. Free your mind.
FHS layout (was: providing apache2 rpms ?)
Posted by Peter Poeml <po...@suse.de>.
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:03:46AM +0100, Thom May wrote:
> > Given that we're doing a "system" install, then, I would suggest that we
> > follow the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/), and design a layout.
> >
> > (altho it would seem the discussion will revolve around whether to drop
> > everything into /opt or in the standard locations like /usr/sbin)
> >
> The "Debian" layout should be fine for the latter.
From a SuSE user's perspective, everybody would indeed be fine with the
Debian layout (thanks to FHS!). Except for two small issues:
- none of the layouts currently provides paths for 64 bit architectures
that put libraries into /lib64 and /usr/lib64 instead of /lib and
/usr/lib. Note that these architectures can be "biarch". (A seperate
(otherwise identical) layout could be used for that, that's what we
do for now anyway [*].) FHS 2.2 provides for lib64 but not for biarch
systemas, AFAICS.
- as installbuilddir, /usr/share/apache2/build would fit better IMHO
(I don't think this configuration stuff is host specific)
I am glad to see that other distros also use the "apache2" directories
so apache2 can be installed alongside apache1.
We could actually drop the "SuSE" and "Debian" layouts, and possibly
others, from config.layout, and introduce a "FHS 2.2" layout! (I.e. copy
the Debian layout)
How about that? It seems *nearly* possible: the only thing not
standardized by FHS is the server root /var/www, so it might be untimely
to call that layout to be *fully* FHS 2.2 compliant.
- In an attempt to establish a better place than /var/www, we now use
/srv/www as server root. Despite the fact that /var/www has been in
use by many distros for years, a consensus on it could never be
reached, as I understand it because the purpose of /var is variable
administrative data and transient files, /var may be mounted noexec,
and most people do not like the saperation of the executable files
from the server root to somewhere else (it's not just that CGI's go
to /usr/lib/cgi-bin, but pages also might contain server side
includes). If the /srv directory can be settled as de-facto standard
(it is useful for ftp and other stuff as well) it will find its way
into the FHS.
But this is quite irrelevant for "Jane User" in building a package, and
no reason for the Apache Group not to provide a spec file.
I as a package maintainer have another issue concerning the layout. (I
think it's worth to mention it here, because it is certainly beneficial
for apache if the distros present their packages in some "common" or
"standard" way, and maybe we shouldn't do the same thing in five
different ways.)
- I want to provide more than one MPM, and attach -$mpm_suffix to the
binary name, as well as to /usr/{include,lib}/apache2 to make them
coexist. apxs requires some changes, in order to build modules for a
server with a certain MPM, or for all types of MPMS, and use the
right flags/locations.
But this is my own stuff, and even though I couldn't just use the Debian
layout for this, it shouldn't stop us from merging the layouts into one
FHS compliant layout.
Peter
PS. Anyone feel free to reply in personal mail for package related
discussion that does not suit this list.
[*] A note... the "SuSE" layout in config.layout as of 2.0.42 does not
reflect all these issues. (I'll submit a patch when I have moved the
icons and error directories to /usr/share/apache2 -- which I just
learned that from the Debian layout, and which I like.)
--
Thought is limitation. Free your mind.
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Thom May <th...@planetarytramp.net>.
* Greg Stein (gstein@lyra.org) wrote :
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 05:10:09PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> >...
> > I think the only technical issues stopping us are:
> > - layout to choose
>
> I was about the say the "Apache" layout, but that is best suited for
> /usr/local/apache2, rather than a normal system.
>
> Given that we're doing a "system" install, then, I would suggest that we
> follow the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/), and design a layout.
>
> (altho it would seem the discussion will revolve around whether to drop
> everything into /opt or in the standard locations like /usr/sbin)
>
The "Debian" layout should be fine for the latter.
-Thom
--
Thom May -> thom@planetarytramp.net
US elections:
For those of you fearing that the rest of the world might be making fun
of the US because of this: Rest assured, we are.
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 05:10:09PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
>...
> I think the only technical issues stopping us are:
> - layout to choose
I was about the say the "Apache" layout, but that is best suited for
/usr/local/apache2, rather than a normal system.
Given that we're doing a "system" install, then, I would suggest that we
follow the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/), and design a layout.
(altho it would seem the discussion will revolve around whether to drop
everything into /opt or in the standard locations like /usr/sbin)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
Since we're on it, and since I did that already to keep up to date our 20+
Solaris machines... Do we want to include also a proto and a script for
Solaris?
Pier
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net>.
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>> I would be happy putting a spec file in the distribution,
>> if someone could agree where apache should live on linux box.
>
>
> I think having 1 spec file is better than having no spec file. If there
> are any distros with special needs they would probably roll their own
> anyway.
>
> I would be more keen to use an official apache RPM than say a Redhat
> one, as Redhat (and possibly other distros) are rather slow at releasing
> the latest bugfixes.
>
+1 from me.
I think the only technical issues stopping us are:
- layout to choose
- a method of getting the version number in the spec file.
(which would need to be part of the buildconf process I think)
the second is important because doing this we could simply allow us to
do something like:
rpmbuild --sign -ta <disttarfile>
I'm not sure if it makes a difference on which distribution it was
actually built on.. maybe the mandrake/redhat/suse guys have some
suggestions.
> Regards,
> Graham
--Ian
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Oden Eriksson <od...@kvikkjokk.net>.
On söndagen den 29 september 2002 19.48 Graham Leggett wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> > I would be happy putting a spec file in the distribution,
> > if someone could agree where apache should live on linux box.
>
> I think having 1 spec file is better than having no spec file. If there
> are any distros with special needs they would probably roll their own
> anyway.
>
> I would be more keen to use an official apache RPM than say a Redhat
> one, as Redhat (and possibly other distros) are rather slow at releasing
> the latest bugfixes.
Slow?
rpm -qp --changelog \
ftp://ftp.uninett.no/linux/Mandrake/Mandrake-devel/contrib/SRPMS/apache2-2.0.42-5mdk.src.rpm
;-)
Mandrake Linux is currently the most loaded apache2 distro right now...
Chears.
--
Regards // Oden Eriksson
Deserve-IT Networks -> http://d-srv.com
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Ian Holsman wrote:
> I would be happy putting a spec file in the distribution,
> if someone could agree where apache should live on linux box.
I think having 1 spec file is better than having no spec file. If there
are any distros with special needs they would probably roll their own
anyway.
I would be more keen to use an official apache RPM than say a Redhat
one, as Redhat (and possibly other distros) are rather slow at releasing
the latest bugfixes.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Peter Poeml <po...@suse.de>.
Hi!
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 09:19:55AM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> I would be happy putting a spec file in the distribution,
> if someone could agree where apache should live on linux box.
I think the layout on Linux shouldn't be so different between the
distros anymore because most already follow FHS (the filesystem
hierarchy standard). FHS makes pretty clear what lives where.
(Except for the server root, where there is no real standard yet.)
Including a spec file would be a nice idea anyway but IMHO it would be
hard to have a common one for all distros.
Wrt RPM packages... AFAIK you apache folks provide binaries only when
someone from the team had built them, and I guess this includes RPMs.
However, would it be an option for you, and acceptable, to link to sites
that provide packages for a given distro? Maybe this could suit Henri,
too.
I would be happy to provide RPMs for UnitedLinux and for SuSE 7.2-8.1,
anyway.
> Henri Gomez wrote:
> >Now that jk 1.2.0 has been released many users ask me for
> >Apache 2.0.42 rpms which are located at :
> >
> >http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/
> >
> >What about copying it also on httpd.apache.org,
> >ie http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/linux/
Peter
--
Thought is limitation. Free your mind.
Re: providing apache2 rpms ?
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
I would be happy putting a spec file in the distribution,
if someone could agree where apache should live on linux box.
Henri Gomez wrote:
> Now that jk 1.2.0 has been released many users ask me for
> Apache 2.0.42 rpms which are located at :
>
> http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/
>
> What about copying it also on httpd.apache.org,
> ie http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/linux/
>
> Regards
>
>