On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
I had assummed that apache2 was so that people could test apache2 without
killing their apache1 installation.
And you are correct...
Back in the day, we used 'apache' as the name of the web-server
(Powered by Apache anyone?), and so that
On 31 Jan 2012, at 1:54 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
I can look at RPM, but I am at least 80% of the way with installp. A
quickDirty one is already ready, but I want to finish it up a little bit more
(sub filesets, dependancies).
What I meant was, we currently keep the various config files and
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
We don't release 'snapshots'...
That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
snapshots of the current state of software. I'm pretty sure you've
lived on the bleeding edge of one system package or another.
On 1/31/2012 8:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
We don't release 'snapshots'...
That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
snapshots of the current state of software. I'm pretty sure you've
lived on the bleeding
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:59 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/31/2012 8:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
We don't release 'snapshots'...
That doesn't mean early adopters don't seek out version control or
snapshots of the current state
Understood. And considering above I shall change the apache2 to httpd in
my layout.
Once I have all the scripts together to create something like the
httpd.spec file I'll ask about how it should/could be integrated - so I can
test that as well.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Graham Leggett
you might want to consider changing the meaning of + from apache2 to
httpd :)
Now I am using /var/httpd and /etc/httpd rather than /var+ and /etc+
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Understood. And considering above I shall change the apache2 to httpd in
I have been adding this to the config.layout
# Adopt layout using /opt (read-only) filesystem conventions on AIX
# Standard executables in /opt (shareable)
# man pages at AIX standard location (/usr/share/man)
# editable files, scripts in /etc and /var
Layout AIX
prefix:
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:03 +0100, Michael Felt wrote:
prefix:/opt/apache2
exec_prefix: /opt/apache2
I have often ponderd WHY people do things like this, the projects name
is apache, not apache2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On 30 Jan 2012, at 12:03 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
So, my question about this proposed layout: are there any files in /opt that
need to be modified on a per-system basis?
Not that I could see, no.
Finally, as a distributeable I would be creating an installp, or AIX legacy
package as this,
Am 29.01.2012 20:19, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known bug
(core
issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 something to test-build
with (for
AIX).
The right answer
Am 29.01.2012 20:19, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known bug
(core
issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 something to test-build
with (for
AIX).
The right answer
On Jan 29, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a
known bug (core
issue), but would still be nice to have a
On 1/30/2012 4:31 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:03 +0100, Michael Felt wrote:
prefix:/opt/apache2
exec_prefix: /opt/apache2
I have often ponderd WHY people do things like this, the projects name is
apache, not apache2
No, it isn't. Apache is the name
On 1/30/2012 7:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 29, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a
known bug (core
On 1/30/2012 7:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
longer create them?
If people didn't test formally announced *betas*, I have significant
doubts that they would
On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:03 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
longer create them?
If people didn't test formally
On Monday 30 January 2012, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/30/2012 4:31 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:03 +0100, Michael Felt wrote:
prefix:/opt/apache2
exec_prefix: /opt/apache2
I have often ponderd WHY people do things like this, the projects
name
On 1/30/2012 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:03 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we no
longer create
I can look at RPM, but I am at least 80% of the way with installp. A
quickDirty one is already ready, but I want to finish it up a little bit
more (sub filesets, dependancies).
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 30 Jan 2012, at 12:03 PM, Michael Felt
I had assummed that apache2 was so that people could test apache2 without
killing their apache1 installation.
IMHO IBM's packaging of early apache (called IHS for - I think IBM HTTP
Server) was 'different' and they kept changing the name of the main
directory, e.g. changed the capitalization of
On 1/30/2012 6:21 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
I had assummed that apache2 was so that people could test apache2 without
killing their
apache1 installation.
Fairly certain that was true. Of course moving from 2.0-2.2-2.4 that
is no longer much help.
Anyways, just wanted to let you know there is
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known
bug (core issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 something
to test-build with (for AIX).
In other words, in the /dev/dist directory I only find the 2.2.22 images.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Stefan
On Sunday 29 January 2012, Michael Felt wrote:
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with
a known bug (core issue), but would still be nice to have a
2.4.0/2.4.1 something to test-build with (for AIX).
In other words, in the /dev/dist directory I only find the 2.2.22
On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known
bug (core
issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 something to
test-build with (for
AIX).
The right answer would be to have snapshots to share, but AFAIK we
FYI - compiled 2.2.22 and 2.4.0 with no issues on AIX. Working on making an
installable package (aka binary package). Is there any interest for this
here, or is just a fun exercise for myself?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM,
On 29 Jan 2012, at 11:17 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
FYI - compiled 2.2.22 and 2.4.0 with no issues on AIX. Working on making an
installable package (aka binary package). Is there any interest for this
here, or is just a fun exercise for myself?
What does this involve? Anything that makes an
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 13:19 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/29/2012 4:21 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
Um. Now that I am back from vacation - I am aware you are busy with a known
bug (core
issue), but would still be nice to have a 2.4.0/2.4.1 something to
test-build with (for
AIX).
On Sunday 22 January 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I am rescinding the vote for 2.4.0. Instead, on Monday (or
Tuesday at the latest) I will TR 2.4.1.
Plese wait until at least the core output filter issue is completely
resolved. Thanks.
29 matches
Mail list logo
