----- Original Message -----
From: Gurunandan R. Bhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [LI] c compiler
> >
> > 1. recompiling from the CVS is still no joke.
>
> I agree. The original post discussed compiling from a tar ball
Where ? I never said anything of that sort .
> There will be instances where it might be neccessary and advisable to
> build your own binaries. I say : Dont make a religion out of it. The
> original poster mentioned that he *always* rebuilds from sources. I say :
> If you do that then you might miss out on one or more of several
> binaries-only packages.
>
The foremost reason why you have to have the source is because , for a
production enviornment ,which you refer to repeatedly, you need to be
vigiliant about bug fixes and security breaches( i certainly hope any
concentious admin is). The patches are distributed in source form only . For
binary patches , move over to windows!:-). Do you now agree that having the
source and recompiling with the latest patches is *nescessary* for a
production enviornment!Any old kernel or daemon or infact any old package in
a server is a sucker waiting for an attack to come , as the breaches
possible are well documented in the various logs, security advisories,
bugtrack and the announcement lists of the various distros. And the world
still has a lot of hackers yet!:-)
> We seem to be reading different docs. I have built Apache with perl,
> mysql, postgresql and php3 as modules. The build was without incident. I
> followed instructions in the Unix Online Docs.
>
Ok , that is a different beast.Let's get down to specifics. I went through
the docs that came with the tarballs . I unpacked the apache source and
mod_ssl , openssl , mod_perl 1.21 , php-3.0.12 etc.( the latest when i
downloaded them , i checked their lists.) and started building via APACI,
not axps( which you might have done , since that is the default for several
modules now, i used APACI for conformity , as i want to get a working binary
before i start pulling in the CVS etc.Any chinwag about this calls for a
separate thread!). I had earlier compiled mysql into /usr/local. I
configured the modules to my liking and started the compile. Since I always
compile with 2>errorlog, tee successlog, i have a full log of whatever
happens. The trouble is - when you have certain combination of options, ( i
have quite a few- to understand what i am up to , just listen to the
Backstreet Boys' 'I want it that way'!:-)), the flag that marks the starting
of the linker specific options ( Wl in this case) comes after some of the
linker options ( -rpath here). This is because the options are duplicated
several times.A simple -Xlinker solves this problem. This is symptomatic of
many source packages eg linuxconf, where the sources rarely compile without
major surgery on the makefiles. Along with me, Indra had the same
experience,so i am assured that this problem is reproducable. If you want my
configuration parameters, I can mail it to you at your personal address.
BTW, since you use apache, how do you get the DSA server keys to
ork?( mod_ssl /Openssl make certificate) Netscape refused to accept any
other server key other than RSA 40 bit,which is what make certificate ( RSA)
builds and i refuse to consider that secure enough for a secure server. I
sent this question in this list some time back. You might have missed
it.Which docs did u see?
> tweaking the optimisations and other compiler options
> (-fno-strength-reduce perhaps ? Linus still carries it around) and then
> using that kernel in a production environment is not experimenting. It is
> recklessness. Will you expel me from your Linux club if I refuse to do
> that?
>
Tain't just my club. You made it yours too by replying!:-) I was getting
bored with threads on Video cards and PCQ cd's et all . Less technical
stuff and more of user support stuff. ( My Ilug-ite's agree!). Not exactly
the thing to set one's blood on fire.
How about just redirecting some of this support stuff to the right place -
the manufacturer's web site?( SiS! and Trident beware!).
Jokes apart, both of us are free to disagree/ Convince one another and carry
out our philosophy in the spirit of open source.
>. Just how many of these packages do you use together?
>
> Irrelevant. For somebody who decides to *always* rebuild from sources, it
> is enough that not a single one is available.
Tain't the answer to what I asked.And i made it up by the following
statement which you also snipped. You did send a large list of packages ,
justifying my earlier contention that distros are going the windows way,
cluttering hard disks with stuff that is never used. Ask the guys who have
installed Everything from Redhat to list out offhand even 50% of what
exactly everything has dumped on their hard disks.( this q is open to all)
>
> > I never claimed i lay off commercial software, I only stated, that for
> > packages where the source is available, it is silly not to take
> > advantage of the options at your disposal.
>
> Ah! Finally we agree.
>
Ok , that is a good beginning !However, Now i recall , you did specify
sybase in your list. The one which is free for all purpose use is an old
one - 11.0 something and the current one 11.9 something is for restricted
use. The old ones have known bugs in them. How do they fit in a production
enviornment?( the restricted license exists for many packages. That is why I
think i am getting to like the debian structure - free, and Closed source
stuff in separate trees to emphasize the difference between them.)Anyway ,
they do not come within Open Source, So they are not in the true Stallman or
GNU/Linux Spirit at all.
Shanker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Linux India Mailing List Archives are now available. Please search
the archive at http://lists.linux-india.org/ before posting your question
to avoid repetition and save bandwidth.
