You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> on 2001/03/02 23:39:48 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 acinclude.m4 Makefile.in
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 03:46:26PM -0000, gregames@apache.org wrote:
> gregames 01/03/02 07:46:23
>
> Modified: . acinclude.m4 Makefile.in
> Log:
> fix make install so that suexec is installed where the server expects to
> find it ( <prefix>/sbin by default).
>
> also enable ./configure --sbindir=DIR to work as advertised.
While you're at it: whose idea wa it to default to /usr/local as the
installation prefix? I almost ruined my system when I first tried a
"make install" and it wrote into /usr/local/libexec, /usr/local/bin,
and generated all these funny other directories within /usr/local.
Nobody who tries 2.0 for the first time expects that.
I vote for /usr/local/apache.
Martin
--
<Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> | Fujitsu Siemens
<ma...@apache.org> | 81730 Munich, Germany
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 acinclude.m4 Makefile.in
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
I'd adopted Apache2.0 for the default on Win32, but I'm happy to change.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Kraemer" <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 acinclude.m4 Makefile.in
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 12:42:11AM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> > > > I vote for /usr/local/apache.
> > >
> > > ++1, but can we use /usr/local/apache2?
> >
> > +1 for /usr/local/apache2
>
> +1.
>
> Martin
> --
> <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> | Fujitsu Siemens
> <ma...@apache.org> | 81730 Munich, Germany
>
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 acinclude.m4 Makefile.in
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>.
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 12:42:11AM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> > > I vote for /usr/local/apache.
> >
> > ++1, but can we use /usr/local/apache2?
>
> +1 for /usr/local/apache2
+1.
Martin
--
<Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> | Fujitsu Siemens
<ma...@apache.org> | 81730 Munich, Germany
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 acinclude.m4 Makefile.in
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
> > I vote for /usr/local/apache.
>
> ++1, but can we use /usr/local/apache2?
+1 for /usr/local/apache2
david
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 acinclude.m4 Makefile.in
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 03:46:26PM -0000, gregames@apache.org wrote:
> > gregames 01/03/02 07:46:23
> >
> > Modified: . acinclude.m4 Makefile.in
> > Log:
> > fix make install so that suexec is installed where the server expects to
> > find it ( <prefix>/sbin by default).
> >
> > also enable ./configure --sbindir=DIR to work as advertised.
>
> While you're at it: whose idea wa it to default to /usr/local as the
> installation prefix? I almost ruined my system when I first tried a
> "make install" and it wrote into /usr/local/libexec, /usr/local/bin,
> and generated all these funny other directories within /usr/local.
> Nobody who tries 2.0 for the first time expects that.
> I vote for /usr/local/apache.
++1, but can we use /usr/local/apache2?
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------