Debian - Apache help

[Christopher Browne]

> Zbigniew Koziol wrote:
> > 
> >> If I want to see how Apache2 works etc., do I have to uninstall Apache 
> >> or will apt-get look after all those details?
>  >
> > No, I do not know if apt-get will do the thing and I do not care to 
> > know. Or rpm would do?
> 
> Yes, apt-get will look after all those details. I don't know if apache 
> and apache2 can co-exist on the same box these days. I suspect they can, 
> but haven't actually tried it recently. All other things being equal, 
> you probably want to run apache2.

It looks as though they can, at least as far as dependancies are
concerned...

cbbrowne at wolfe:compiles/slony1-engine/src/backend> sudo apt-get install apache apache2
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
  apache-common apache-utils apache2-common apache2-mpm-worker libexpat1
  libexpat1-dev
Suggested packages:
  apache-doc apache-ssl apache-perl libapache-mod-auth-mysql
  libapache-mod-auth-pgsql apache2-doc
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  apache apache-common apache-utils apache2 apache2-common apache2-mpm-worker
The following packages will be upgraded:
  libexpat1 libexpat1-dev
2 upgraded, 6 newly installed, 0 to remove and 646 not upgraded.
Need to get 2771kB of archives.
After unpacking 8323kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] 
 
> > You can always however compile another version and configure it to 
> > listen on another port than 80. You may have 64 thousands versions of 
> > apache on your machine.
> 
> Actually, any pre-compiled binary of apache I've ever worked with can be 
> configured to run on non-default ports. Merv, take a look in 
> /etc/apache2/ports.conf on debian for apache2.
> 
> Compiling a binary just to change the default port would be a pretty 
> ignorant thing to do. Not to mention a waste of time.

Yeah, the sort of reason that would _actually_ justify compiling Apache
from scratch would be if you needed to have the source code around in
order to compile some extension, some mod_frobozz system...

> > I consider all these tricks with apt-get and rpm as a step back in the 
> > development of the system and in educating people. It makes also Linux 
> > more similar to Windows.

> If by that you're talking about how Windows has lowered the bar for
> entry and made it easy for newbies to get started using the system,
> then I think there could be no greater compliment to Linux. If you
> meant it as an insult, which it sounds like you did, then clearly you
> don't know what you're talking about. There are situations where
> compiling from scratch is an unavoidable necessity. They are few and
> far between.

I have to point out the Slony-I replication system as a conspicuous
example.  A number of Windows folk are enquiring about its availability
on Windows, but they are demonstrating themselves to be helpless to be
capable of supporting it in that it needs to be compiled, and they start
by saying "... and I can't compile on my platform."

I think it's important to see the merits of using compiled binaries.

But the complete inability to compile software demonstrates a vital
"point of helplessness."

The difference _isn't_ that those that choose to install precompiled
things are, by virtue of that, helpless, and those that compile things
aren't.

Rather, having the choice available is "power," whereas not having the
choice implies a lack thereof.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
If you're sending someone some Styrofoam, what do you pack it in?
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml