Re: virtual package for apache required?
--On Thu, May 21, 1998 3:05 pm +0200 "Christoph Martin"
<martin@uni-mainz.de> wrote:
>
> Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>>
>>>apache and apache-ssl should both depend on the apache-common and
>>>provide apache-virtual (or else) and the other packages (as php) could
>>>then depend on it.
>>
>>why not make apache-ssl an addon to apache, and depend on it ?
>>it wouldn't be a harm for most people to have on additional file on their
hard
>>disk.
>
> apache is version 1.3beta.
> apache-ssl is based on version 1.2 of apache since there is no SSL
> patch yet for the apache 1.3 beta version.
>
>>
>>how many files are different in apache and apache-ssl ?
>
> Because of the difference in the main version, most of the binaries
> are different. As for the SSL part, only (as far as I can see) the
> apache binary itself and some support scripts are different.
>
>>can apache-ssl be an optional module to apache ?
>
> You configure it like a module, but it is compiled into the binary and
> there are also some patches in different places.
>
>>or can apache-ssl be equivalent to apache, with the only difference
>>in /usr/sbin/apache and some additional doc files ?
>
> It's more than that.
>
>>
>>is apache-ssl slower than normal apache (running without ssl) ?
>>if so, people will run a normal apache, and an additional ssl apache.
>
> People do both, use apache-ssl for http and https or use apache for
> http and apache-ssl for https. And they all have god reasons for it.
> That is why I tried to make both ways work.
apache-ssl running in non-ssl mode shouldn't be significantly slower than
apache... (I'd be very surprised, in fact, if any Debian user was running at
more than 10% of apache's performance bottlenecks?).
However, I'll take Christoph's word for it that there are reasons to run
both together.
How well does apache-common work? You suggest that mod_perl could be in
apache-common (and personally, I'd *really* like that...) but I am a little
surprised that a module compiled against the 1.2 headers will run in 1.3 -
IIRC, there were some moderate to large behind-the-scenes changes.
The whole setup is distinctly sub-optimal, IMO, but I suspect that your
solution, Christoph, is the best. Hopefully the problem will go away when
1.3.0 goes final (1.3b6 is the final release candidate, according to
netgod's changelog, anyway), and the apache SSL group release changes
against 1.3.0. (Off the top of my head, I don't understand why apache-ssl
couldn't be set up us entirely a plug-in module, I have to admit...)
Although, I'd prefer the name of the virtual package to be apache-web-server
(rather than apache-virtual).
Hmm...
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: