In apache 1.3 we had this little trick:
if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
conf_port="8080"
fi
to make the port 8080 when the user is not root - thus to reduce the
number of 'apache wont start' newby errors and be generally convenient for
the masses (and
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In apache 1.3 we had this little trick:
>
> if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> conf_port="8080"
> fi
>
> to make the port 8080 when the user is not root - thus to reduce the
> number of 'apache wont start' new
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 07:49:25AM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In apache 1.3 we had this little trick:
> >
> > if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> > conf_port="8080"
> > fi
> >
> > to make the port 8080 when
According to Ravindra Jaju:
> How about an extra echo:
>
> if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> conf_port="8080"
> echo "Non-root process. Server will run on port $conf_port"
> fi
+1
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Lars Eilebrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> According to Ravindra Jaju:
>
> > How about an extra echo:
> >
> > if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> > conf_port="8080"
> > echo "Non-root process. Server will run on port $conf_port"
> > fi
>
> +1
The pr
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> According to Ravindra Jaju:
>
> > How about an extra echo:
> >
> > if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> > conf_port="8080"
> > echo "Non-root process. Server will run on port $conf_port"
> > fi
>
> +1
>
I don't see how
* Ravindra Jaju ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 07:49:25AM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > In apache 1.3 we had this little trick:
> > >
> > > if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> > > conf_p
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>
> > According to Ravindra Jaju:
> >
> > > How about an extra echo:
> > >
> > > if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> > > conf_port="8080"
> >
Thom May wrote:
>
> > How about an extra echo:
> >
> > if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> > conf_port="8080"
> > echo "Non-root process. Server will run on port $conf_port"
> > fi
>
> I think the best solution is to educate the user, rather than to do
> somethi
> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 July 2002 17:20
>> From: Lars Eilebrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>> According to Ravindra Jaju:
>>
>>> How about an extra echo:
>>>
>>> if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
>>> conf_port="8080"
>>> echo
* Jim Jagielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> Thom May wrote:
> >
> > > How about an extra echo:
> > >
> > > if [ "x`$aux/getuid.sh`" != "x0" -a "x$port" = "x" ]; then
> > > conf_port="8080"
> > > echo "Non-root process. Server will run on port $conf_port"
> > > fi
> >
> > I think the best
> From: Thom May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 July 2002 18:04
> * Jim Jagielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> > Thom May wrote:
> Please don't do this. We should_not_ be second guessing the user.
>
> > I'd prefer education but also that they get a configuration that they
> > can test "
Have there been any complaints about how 1.3 has been doing it for
ages? A 'make install; /bin/apachectl start' no matter who does
the building has "always" resulted in at least a somewhat functional
server. I don't see the reason for stopping a traditional behavior
(and a possible expectation fro
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:12:07PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Have there been any complaints about how 1.3 has been doing it for
> ages? A 'make install; /bin/apachectl start' no matter who does
> the building has "always" resulted in at least a somewhat functional
> server. I don't see the rea
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Have there been any complaints about how 1.3 has been doing it for
None seen here.
> ages? A 'make install; /bin/apachectl start' no matter who does
> the building has "always" resulted in at least a somewhat functional
> server. I don't see the reas
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:12:07PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Have there been any complaints about how 1.3 has been doing it for
> > ages? A 'make install; /bin/apachectl start' no matter who does
> > the building has "always" resulted in at least a somewhat func
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:12:07PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Have there been any complaints about how 1.3 has been doing it for
> > ages? A 'make install; /bin/apachectl start' no matter who does
> > the building has "always" resulted
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> We have fixed our installation step to preserve existing config files,
> so if you compile as a non-root user, and install over the top of an
> existing installation, your port won't change.
>
> This only has to do with how the server is configured the FIRST time the
> serv
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Have there been any complaints about how 1.3 has been doing it for
> ages?
Yes. I've seen many confused people posting to
comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix who where caught by exactly this issue.
It usually starts with a basic query like "I installed
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Yes. I've seen many confused people posting to
> comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix who where caught by exactly this
> issue. It usually starts with a basic query like "I installed apache and
> it says that it started successfully, but I can't access it.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 12:30:35PM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
> As I've said, this "cute" feature is confusing for newbies and irritating
> for some legitimate users. The only people it helps are people who
> install apache often for testing, and these people should know to use
> --port on the co
>> Have there been any complaints about how 1.3 has been doing it for
>> ages?
>
> Yes. I've seen many confused people posting to
> comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix who where caught by exactly this issue.
> It usually starts with a basic query like "I installed apache and it says
> that it star
> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 July 2002 21:24
>> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:12:07PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Have there been any complaints about how 1.3 has been doing it for
>>> ages? A 'make install; /bin/a
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 12:30:35PM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
> ... The only people it helps are people who
> install apache often for testing, and these people should know to use
> --port on the configure command line.
Oh don't get me started on that again... ;)
-aaron
Who woudda thunk that such a minor thing would cause such a big
discussion :) I love open source collaboration.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trad
* Jim Jagielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >
> > We have fixed our installation step to preserve existing config files,
> > so if you compile as a non-root user, and install over the top of an
> > existing installation, your port won't change.
> >
> > This only has to do w
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> And people who do very sensible things like build/install as
> non-root and then startup as root must go through an extra
> step to fix this change.
Bah, they should use ./configure --with-port=80 (or whatever
the 2.0 version of that 1.3ism is).
:-)
--
#kenP-)}
Ken
27 matches
Mail list logo
