On Tuesdayen den 9 April 2002 12.48, Jean-Michel Dault wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 19:16, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> > Is your mailbox emptied today? This message bounced yesterday.
>
> Yes, my mail was forwarded to my old ISP and they implemented a quota
> system on their IMAP servers without telling me. I moved everything to
> POP3 on the Mandrake servers, so it should work now.
>
> > Aha, I don't use mod_perl at all I'm afraid... To use it you need to know
> > perl, and I'm just a lame hacker...
>
> Well, you can use Apache-ASP and HTML-Embperl, those are really easy to
> use.
I don't even use ASP :)
> > Anyway, I will try to package apache 2.0.35 today and maybe release it
> > (today or tomorrow) into contrib, either under the name "apache2" or
> > "httpd". I thought it would be great to have people testing it some to
> > get feedback.
>
> I suggest you add a define in the spec file that defines "APTST" to
> "advx2_". This way, we can define everything related to a prefix.
>
> You would have a package name of %{APTST}apache, with config files in
> /etc/httpd/conf/%{APTST}httpd.conf, and have %{APTST}mod_php, there
> would be both /etc/rd.d/init.d/httpd and /etc/rc.d/init.d/%{APTST}httpd.
>
> This way, we can have both releases at the same time in Cooker without
> conflicts, and when we're ready to make a full switch, we just use our
> favorite search-and-replace tool to get rid of the %(APTST} and rebuild
> without any problem.
I don't know if this is possible. It would probably require me to hack the
source, or maybe you mean to define the %{APTST}httpd.conf when firing up
apache?
Anyway, to do this globally it will require serious hacking in the source.
AFAIK the only thing that can be changed without patching is like
"--with-program-name=httpd2", and change the directories for modules dir, and
includes.
This would have been easiest "--prefix=/opt/apache2" :-)
Ahh, I get it..., I install the stuff in buildroot, but I forcly change the
module names by the prefix? (sorry..., i'm having some beer over here:))
The other binaries will conflict, or would be hard to use with the prefix...
> > It would be a sidetrack of the more serious things you're doing right
> > now, and maybe provide us/you with valuble feedback before the migration
> > to the new apache version. Is this okay with you?
>
> Yes, of course, if there is already an RPM, it leaves me more time to
> spend on integration, diff-of-a-diff-of-a-diff and trying to find out
> why it segfaults ;-)
>
> > One problem I found is that there is no "DESTDIR" or "root" (ie. make
> > install root=/opt) in the "Makefile.in", I have to hack it to the best of
> > my knowledge. Maybe Debian has a patch allready...
>
> Or RH/Suse/Conectiva ;-)
PLD was the first ones as allways to publish... hell, these polish guys are
really awake. Their spec file was unnessesary complex, a binary rpm for each
module :)
> > Another thing is what MPM model we should chose for now, maybe "prefork"
> > and later "worker" ?
>
> I'm still trying to figure out what would be the best one to use for a
> general distro. Seems like prefork is the easiest to start with.
Yes, as long as we don't get stuck in the (old) prefork model. worker or
perchild seems very exiting to me.
> > Don't see it as I want to stress you, I'm just eager to try it out myself
> > as it's a stable version, and doing the "packaging" is a great way for me
> > to learn the new apache version. It will not have all the candy as the
> > current apache package.
>
> No stress here. The real stress is getting the candy to work, as each
> kid have their own preferences ;-)
>
> So go ahead, scratch your itch!
Ok, I'll try my very best. A problem for me is that the Mandrake machine I
have access to has a _very_ unreliable connection, the connection can die in
the middle of editing. So I have to do this on my machine here at home,
luckily it's a pretty new and fast machine (but noisy), but it takes a while
to compile anyway. I'm the trial and error type of guy... Well..., I think
it's clear to me now how to do it.
--
Regards // Oden Eriksson
