Re: install apache 2.0 - source or rpm?

[Andy Firman <andy firman us>]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 10:42:56AM -0600, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 10:49:04AM -0500, Andy Firman wrote:
> > I am trying to build an apache 2.0.48 rpm for 
> > RedHat 9 like this:
> 
> The first question you need to ask yourself is why you're trying to
> build this version.  In many cases that I've seen, new users are
> misguided in thinking that they need or want the latest version rather
> than concentrating on getting the current version working.

Well I am not a new Linux user, but a new "RedHat 9" user.

I had a client ask me to do 2 things to his Redhat 9 box.
Get Apache 2.0.48 and PHP 4.3.4 installed.

I failed miserably on both and am now taking a big step back to do 
this stuff on one of my test boxes.  Time to learn!

>  
> > A more basic question is, what is the preferred way
> > to get the latest software into RedHat 9?
> 
> The preferred way is to stay at the version that Red Hat provides.
> That's one of the values that the distributor provides - to solve
> dependency issues.
> 

I agree 100%.  But the client asked me for the latest and greatest.


> > Or should I really try hard to stay with the package
> > management system?
> 
> rpm is very powerful is you use it as it's intended.  If you fight it,
> it will hurt you in the end.

I agree 100%.  Same thing with Debian's dpkg system.

> 
> So let's back up and start with defining the problem that you're
> actually trying to solve, not what you're trying to do.
> 
>         .../Ed
> 
> p.s. Don't take this is a personal attack - I once too thought that I
> always needed the latest release. 
> 

No offense taken.  I greatly appreciate your comments and feedback.

How about I ask the question this way:

"If you were asked to install Apache 2.0.48 and PHP 4.3.4 on a 
RedHat 9 server, how would you do the task at hand?"

:-)

I look forward to hearing how everyone would approach this.


Thanks,
Andy