On Wednesday 21 March 2007 01:23 pm, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> This was one of the other suggestions made on the ARC discuss list. My
> primary concern about keeping both 2.0.x and 2.2.4 around (albeit
> temporarily) is that it creates the possibility of a huge disaster:
>
> application links agains
Alan DuBoff writes:
> The other thing is, what about having 2 seperate directories, keeping the old
> and adding the new, and using a symlink to point to the desired version.
That's what we do with Java, and it's not nice with sparse zones. I'd
expect Apache to be used commonly with zones, so I'
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Stefan,
Your suggestion above might be the best.
The other thing is, what about having 2 seperate directories, keeping the old
and adding the new, and using a symlink to point to the desired version.
This was one of the other suggestions made on the ARC discuss list. My p
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 09:28 am, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> 2. The currently proposed Apache 2.2.4 integration installs Apache in
> /usr/apache2, thereby _overwriting_ the existing Apache 2.0.x. Valid
> arguments have been made pro, and against this approach, with the
> suggestion that Apache 2.2.
These ARC cases are for integration to Solaris, so /opt is inappropriate,
and /usr is correct.
Oh in that case, I agree. *Provided* that the CoolStack stuff will replace
the current stuff on the Solaris distribution media.
Just for clarification, the integration that Stefan is working on isn'
John Plocher wrote:
I should have been clearer - I like this overwrite proposal (as
opposed to a the counter of having /usr/apache, /usr/apache2 and
/usr/apache2.2), as long as the svc manifest names are the same
as used by the current apache2 installation (svc:/network/http:apache)
and not, for
[responding to my own post - sorry]
John Plocher wrote:
Stefan Teleman wrote:
2. The currently proposed Apache 2.2.4 integration installs Apache in
/usr/apache2, thereby _overwriting_ the existing Apache 2.0.x.
As much as I would like to be able to run both
old and new side-by-side, it isn't
Stefan Teleman wrote:
2. The currently proposed Apache 2.2.4 integration installs Apache in
/usr/apache2, thereby _overwriting_ the existing Apache 2.0.x.
Having recently gone down the path of installing/upgrading Apache
on OS-b56, the current scheme is confusing at best. With 2
versions del
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Shawn Walker wrote:
> I never liked the /etc/opt/apache2, and so on that some distributions
> did as sometimes it wasn't clear which apache2 read what configuration
> from where, it also made greps by lazy admins (like me) painful ;)
Agreed, which is why the docs actually sug
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> These ARC cases are for integration to Solaris, so /opt is inappropriate,
> and /usr is correct.
Oh in that case, I agree. *Provided* that the CoolStack stuff will replace
the current stuff on the Solaris distribution media.
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SC
I agree completely. Using /etc/opt/apache2 is confusing and seems overly
complicated to me personally. If we assume that the whole concept behind
the web stack project is ease of use, I think that the whole point is
being missed by adding this much complication to it.
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 2
On 21/03/07, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rich Teer wrote:
> Overwriting the /usr/apache2 that comes on the Solaris media is a no-no,
> in my opinion, and /usr/apache2.2 just pollutes the /usr namespace even
> more than it is already. IMHO, the correct place for this is under /opt
On 21/03/07, Stefan Teleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 21/03/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Overwriting the /usr/apache2 that comes on the Solaris media is a no-no,
>> in my opinion, and /usr/apache2.2 just pollutes the /usr namespace even
>> more than it is
Rich Teer wrote:
Overwriting the /usr/apache2 that comes on the Solaris media is a no-no,
in my opinion, and /usr/apache2.2 just pollutes the /usr namespace even
more than it is already. IMHO, the correct place for this is under /opt.
I have no strong feelings either way, but I would prefer /opt
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> Please keep in mind that, there are two additional locations for Apache, in
> addition to the location of the actual binaries [/{usr,opt}/apache2]:
>
> /etc/apache2
> /var/apache2
>
> These additional two locations *must* exist.
Right, if the Apache
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 21/03/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Overwriting the /usr/apache2 that comes on the Solaris media is a no-no,
in my opinion, and /usr/apache2.2 just pollutes the /usr namespace even
more than it is already. IMHO, the correct place for this is under /opt.
I hav
On 21/03/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> 2. The currently proposed Apache 2.2.4 integration installs Apache in
> /usr/apache2, thereby _overwriting_ the existing Apache 2.0.x. Valid arguments
> have been made pro, and against this approach, wi
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> 1. Should the initial components released for this project include the 64-bit
> bits in the initial Integration ?
Desirable, but not mandatory.
> 2. The currently proposed Apache 2.2.4 integration installs Apache in
> /usr/apache2, thereby _overwritin
Hi.
The ARC Cases for the WebStack NG Project have been submitted for review (and
hopefully approval), and i would like to ask our community's input regarding two
important questions which have come up during our discussions:
1. Should the initial components released for this project include
19 matches
Mail list logo
