Re: Error on building foreign package

From: Solar Designer (solar@private)
Date: Wed Jun 19 2002 - 03:25:50 PDT


On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 12:53:05PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Solar Designer wrote:
> []
> > BTW, Apache is one of those few things I wouldn't keep in a package.
> 
> Why?  Is this due to it's frequent releases

No, mostly due to the amount of compile-time configuration that is
different on different installs even within one organization.  Perhaps
we could avoid that if we wanted to.  But always linking in modules
that are only needed on some installs isn't nice (a security risk).

Also, in the simpler cases, Apache is fairly easy to manage without a
package.  All of it goes under /usr/local/apache by default.

Then, here it's just Russian Apache, but if we were making the package
for Owl everyone would get the cyrillic support.  While the support
itself probably doesn't hurt (it's a feature), we'd have to not make
use of it in default configs.  But this would mean that those who need
it would have to do more configuration than when installing Russian
Apache from source.  Well, perhaps we could maintain a pair of default
config files...

> (I don't think apache releases too frequently)?

I think they release whenever it makes sense.  No complaints here.

> > I suggest that you build the latest and it will go under /usr/local
> > nicely.
> 
> The more manually installed software exists on the (complex) system,
> the more troubles will be with maintenance.  What I like about almost
> any package manager is that it helps to keep all packages controllable
> in uniform way, without a need to remember which file belongs to which
> package, how to install/upgrade any particular one and so on - package
> manager's control scripts handles that (I almost always review those
> scripts anyway, but that's another story).

Indeed.

-- 
/sd



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Sun Jan 15 2006 - 13:43:16 PST