Hi, At 20:48 Uhr +0200 24.08.1999, Michael T. Reiff wrote:

Niall Cosgrove wrote:

...

hi, apache.spec tells me not to run under a production system so how do I get the source tree for the 6.1 apache.rpm (binary) that i am already running on my production system

Since I have to run SuSE on one machine, I adopted the habit of installing just the base system, and then compile and install the SW I need from the original tarballs. Forget about SuSE built rpm's and srm's anyway.

how do you go about updating to a new Suse??? I have done like you suggested often, only finding that I am unable to smothly update to a new SuSE distrib... I am nothing near a pro on these things, too, this may count towards the problems, but nevertheless I tend to need/want things SuSE did not include with their binaries... Jochen

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Michael T. Reiff wrote:

Well ... you're perfectly right ; I have SuSE running since the days of the 4.x releases, and they have *NEVER* managed to keep their sources in consistency with the binaries they ship.

This is one thing, I never felt any need to compile apache myself (since "August '95'"-SuSE).

Forget about SuSE built rpm's and srm's anyway.

Why should I? If I want a SuSE, I take a SuSE - if I want to do things myself, I can take Slackware or Debian... Any package on my system compiled from tarballs renders the rpm databases useless.

I highly advise that you'd use this method too, since thus you also get around SuSE's plain stupidity (sorry folks, gotta

Ooops.

say this) of putting packages like Samba, Apache a.s.o. (imagine, typical *NETWORKING* packages) in /usr/local .

Ok, /usr/LOCAL might not be right - as pointed out, in 6.1 and 6.2, these packages are installed under /usr.

Hey SUSE folks, are you reading this ??? As the name says, /usr/local typically is a *LOCAL* mount. Stuff like Apache or

/usr/local usually IS distributed among the network. (quote from FHS: "It may be used for programs and data that are sharable amongst a group of hosts, but not found in /usr") Lets look at the Filesystem Hirarchy Standard (YOU probably want to get it from somewhere else, I installed fhs.rpm). /usr - sharable, static (why the fsck do you want binaries on /var??? You cant/shouldnt mount /var ro) /opt - Add-on application software packages. Apache and Samba definitely are essential system software, no add-on application. Couldnt find any DB2 package on my CDs... I dont feel that /var is a "typical" nfs mount. Do you share /var/tmp and stuff? Others than /var/spool?

Once again, better forget about SuSE's sources that are shipped with the distribution.

You might be right - but at least, they work. 12:12am up 265 days, 13:50, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.05, 0.01 little server, never since it was built (and the first - and last - kernel was compiled) 12:12am up 56 days, 22:34, 19 users, load average: 0.00, 0.30, 0.31 busy server (ok, not right now - its after midnight ;), rebooted two months ago because I had to move it from one room to another... I saw some Linux-self-compiled boxes - and few of them were as stable as a distribution with _tested_ software on them.

...

Niall (feeling a bit disappointed/confused)

Ciao, Basti (feeling a little strange, hearing such a crap) -- Bastian Friedrich Bastian.Friedrich@gmx.de Adress & Fon available on my HP http://Bilbo.home.pages.de/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/IT d-> s>+: a-- C++> U++++$ P+>++++ L+++ E(+) W++ N+@ o? ?K( ) w-- O- M- V PS+ PE@ Y+(++) PGP t++ 5 X+ R+ tv-->+ b+>++ !DI>+ D++ G(++) e>+++ h(*) r++ y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

"Michael T. Reiff" wrote:

I highly advise that you'd use this method too, since thus you also get around SuSE's plain stupidity (sorry folks, gotta say this) of putting packages like Samba, Apache a.s.o. (imagine, typical *NETWORKING* packages) in /usr/local .

The only thing in my /usr/local is things I've put there. Things I've compiled from tarballs. Apache,leafnode and a few other things.

Hey SUSE folks, are you reading this ??? As the name says, /usr/local typically is a *LOCAL* mount. Stuff like Apache or

Yup locally developed or configured stuff. Things like Apache compiled so the log file goes where I want it. Plus any other changes I wanted.

Samba or the DB2 database are very likely to be used by more people than just the local user(s). They should go into directories that are typical NFS mounts, in particular /var or even better, /opt .

/var???? That makes no sense to me. /usr/local is for things that aren't part of the normal distribution. If I get something it will often go to /usr/local. Why? I can format the rest of the /usr and not lose my stuff. Worse case I can format everything but /home and /usr/local.

Once again, better forget about SuSE's sources that are shipped with the distribution. After all, they're not just weeks but often months behind the current tarballs that you can leech from the web.

I won't argue with that. But not everybody can download all they want. Nick -- --------------------- Nick Zentena SuSE 6.1 Linux 2.2.11 ---------------------

Hi, "Michael T. Reiff" wrote:

Hey SUSE folks, are you reading this ??? As the name says, /usr/local typically is a *LOCAL* mount. Stuff like Apache or Samba or the DB2 database are very likely to be used by more people than just the local user(s). They should go into directories that are typical NFS mounts, in particular /var or even better, /opt .

Well, if you look at the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard -- Version 2.0": 4.6 /usr/local : Local hierarchy The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten when the system software is updated. It may be used for programs and data that are shareable amongst a group of hosts, but not found in /usr. /var? You're kidding... "Linux System Administrators' Guide 0.6": The /var contains data that is changed when the system is running normally. It is specific for each system, i.e., not shared over the network with other computers. But of course you are free to do what you want ;-) Bye Ralf

On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 10:26:27PM -0400, Marie-Denyse wrote:

I think that the reason they might have placed the packages in such locations is because these apps are supposed to be "personal" distributions and not fully business licensed.

Actually to be honest there is no specific reason for the document root of Apache being placed in /usr/local/ We definitely want to move it out of there, but we hesitate to do this move as the LSB/FHS people have still not yet decided on the proper location of the http document root. However in order to be compliant we´ve put the binaries, libraries and configuration files in proper places (/usr/sbin, /usr/lib and /etc/httpd) so this will surely not change in the future. -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Rolf Haberrecker Leiter Business Partner Programm SuSE GmbH, Tel: +49-911-7405331 Schanzaeckerstr. 10, Fax: +49-911-7417755 90443 Nuernberg, Email: rolf@suse.de Germany WWW: http://www.suse.com/

On Mon, Sep 13, 1999 at 07:49:42PM +0000, Rolf Krahl wrote:

In article <19990902114600.D22734@suse.de>, "Rolf Haberrecker" <rolf@suse.de> writes:

...

Actually to be honest there is no specific reason for the document root of Apache being placed in /usr/local/

Well, i think /usr/local is not the wrong place for the document root. The documents that i place on my local server *are* locally installed stuff after all.

But i think the SuSE should leave this document root as empty as possible and should not place apache stuff there. For example, i think the apache manual shouldn't be placed there for two reasons: Firstly because a distribution should always avoid placing things to /usr/local if possible and secondly not all servers decide to export the apache manual to their clients. (Having a document on the server means the duty to maintain this document, this is already a good reason not having foreign docs like the apache manual on the server.) So i think the apache manual should not be placed in the document root wherever you decide to place the document root.

I'd place the apache manual to /usr/doc/packages/appache/manual/ and set a symlink from /usr/local/httpd/htdocs/manual -> /usr/doc/packages/appache/manual to allow the example page to refer to the manual. Thus after installing one might decide to leave or to delete this link in order to have or to have not the apache manual on the server.

This is definitely a reasonable idea. I will change this in the next major release of SuSE Linux. However I prefer an Alias to a symlink. On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 12:50:17PM +1200, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:

...

I'd place the apache manual to /usr/doc/packages/appache/manual/ and set a symlink from /usr/local/httpd/htdocs/manual -> /usr/doc/packages/appache/manual to allow the example page to refer to the manual.

Sounds like a good idea, anyway. But it's not that simple. Preferably, I would like local documents under /usr/local, and the rest of the material that comes with apache out of there - wherever, I don't care. There are a bunch of icons, include headers, and the test page plus associated bla bla. Not sure how to do that though, while keeping in touch with the apache security model.

While we're on the security list, cgi-bin is non-empty. I remember that by some default on some distribution it contained a file with serious security problems?!?

The programs in our cgi-bin should all be harmless. However I will change the permissions in secure and paranoid settings to 000. -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Rolf Haberrecker Leiter Business Partner Programm SuSE GmbH, Tel: +49-911-7405331 Schanzaeckerstr. 10, Fax: +49-911-7417755 90443 Nuernberg, Email: rolf@suse.de Germany WWW: http://www.suse.com/