Why did gentoo decide to "customize" Apache

krunk · Guru Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Posts: 316

There are some things you should just not screw with. One being the standard configuration and maintenance of applications like Apache..... Afterall, apache is one of the shining examples of what open source should be and has a very active development team.

But for some unknown reason, the gentoo devs decided to do Apache "their way". In one fell swoop, they've rendered almost all howto and reference documentation for apache useless and have neglected to provide any documentation of their own. Here's just a few I've noticed in the couple of days setting apache up:

1. Changed the standard httpd.conf file into two separate files, commonapache2.conf and apache2.conf.
2. On a wim, created an *extra* modules directory called apache2-extramodules. This directly interferes with the function of apxs since it is setup to use only one, standard directory: modules
3. httpd binary has been renamed apache2.
4. Many other binaries renamed so that they have a '2' behind them.

Some of these are rather minor, but if you didn't know and were trying to follow the official documentation on apache.org you'd be lost. right off the bat: "To do blah blah, open your httpd.conf and add......"

On top of this silliness, none of the man pages or other documentation has been updated to reflect the changes.

To top it off I have failed to find any official Gentoo documentation of the changes, why they were done, and how exactly they differ.

There may be very good reasons for these changes, but the lack of documentation leaves me to wonder especially since it breaks some functionality.

If anyone has answers to why this was done, I'm curious to know.
_________________
G4 1ghz iBook
PowerMac G3 (B&W) [Powered by Gentoo and Gentoo alone

]

Dual G5
iPod 3rd generation

charlieg · Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:10 am Post subject:

Um, Apache2 vs Apache1.3 perhaps?

Perhaps you ought to do a tiny bit of research and put 2+2 together before entering bitch-slap mode.
_________________
Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary

Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi

krunk · Guru Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Posts: 316

These differences aren't due to apache1 v apache2 changes. They are done by the gentoo ebuild. Though it may (I say may since we don't really know, there not being any documentation), have been an attempt to distinguish 1 from 2, if it breaks compatibility and causes problems with apache's own utilities than imho it is either a bad move or poorly implemented.

Apache Home Page

And for further confirmation, from the ebuild:

srlinuxx · l33t Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 627

I just spent two hours reading the dern docs at apache.org in preparation for configuring my very first files! Man, like this wasn't gonna be rough enough. After wasting a day messing with khttpd that kept ooopsin' on me and now you say the docs aren't gonna match up... ?

maybe I'll unmerge gentoos and see if the source tarball from apache will compile....

<walks off shaking head>

_________________
--You talk the talk, but do you waddle the waddle?
-Gentoo Monthly Screenshots

Roguelazer · Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:47 am Post subject:

Without their changes, it is impossible to use apache1 and apache2 on the same system. That is the reason.
_________________
Registered Linux User #263260

krunk · Guru Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Posts: 316

agaffney · Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:56 am Post subject:

When Apache 2.x became stable in the Portage tree many months back, many people migrated to it. A lot of people run production sites on their Gentoo boxes (me included). I know I didn't want to remove Apache 1.3.x until I knew that 2.x was working perfectly.

nazgum · Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 5:44 am Post subject:

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!

lol my god I hope this was an attempt at humor

_________________
Jabber: nazgum@jabber.org

GENTOO_GOD · n00b Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Posts: 2

Lews_Therin · l33t Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 657 Location: Banned

agaffney · Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:19 am Post subject:

gigel · Guru Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 369 Location: .se/.ro

castorilo · Apprentice Joined: 25 Dec 2002 Posts: 157

sapphirecat · Guru Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 376

robmoss · Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:11 pm Post subject:

A large amount of "documentation" is available on the forums. Check out the FAQs and the Documentation, Tips & Tricks forum. It's all in there...
_________________
Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.

emerge -U will kill your Gentoo
ecatmur, Lord of Portage Bash Scripts

sapphirecat · Guru Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 376

srlinuxx · l33t Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 627

MmmmJoel · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 24 Jan 2003 Posts: 82

sapphirecat · Guru Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 376

Suicidal · l33t Joined: 30 Jul 2003 Posts: 959 Location: /dev/null

GentooBox · Veteran Joined: 22 Jun 2003 Posts: 1168 Location: Denmark

the ebuild just renames some files, big deal ?

comment the lines in the ebuild, and wupti, you got a normal apache installation.
The gentoo team does a good job.
_________________
Encrypt, lock up everything and duct tape the rest

Kihaji · Apprentice Joined: 12 Sep 2002 Posts: 230

GentooBox · Veteran Joined: 22 Jun 2003 Posts: 1168 Location: Denmark

Gentoo Linux, Its all about choice.
The renameing is just a hack, if you dont want the hack, remove it.

The gentoo team could also make a USE flag called apache-hack that people could activate if they wanted both Apache1 and Apache2.

But i think that is too lame to make a USEflag just for one ebuild.
there is no change in the main structure of apache.

I dont think that the Apache developers hate the gentoo team, i've never heard any complains of gentoo before.

and again: just remove the hack if you want want them, it's so easy.
_________________
Encrypt, lock up everything and duct tape the rest

supernovus · Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:56 pm Post subject:

I'll just say that I personally prefer the way that Gentoo sets up Apache to the standard setup. It's easy to use, and as long as you can read, easy to figure out how to work with it. If you don't like it, edit the ebuild file, stick the modified one in /usr/local/portage and presto, no more Gentoo-isms. I think the single biggest reason for keeping it the way it is, is for those people who are running Apache 1.x on their system and want to "try" apache 2.x without overwriting the first one. Plus, once you get used to how the module system is setup, as someone else mentioned, installing something like mod_jk is damn easy.

IMHO
_________________
Remove OTW

Deebster · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 16 Nov 2003 Posts: 126

I never realised that the changes were Gentoo's, I assumed the change in config style was new to apache 2.

Looking at the differences, I prefer Gentoo's setup, as it's more consistent with the rest of the system. Most of the patches, apart from the config/filename changes, are from apache's CVS tree, so it's nothing that probably won't appear in later versions.

sapphirecat does have some good points though, and maybe the ebuild should warn you about these fairly large changes in the setup, and that all non-Gentoo apache documentation might no longer apply. A link to a file/url that documents all the customisations wouldn't be too hard either.

It might be nice to have an ebuild/USE flag for a vanilla install, although personally I'd prefer an install that keeps the config change and patches, but doesn't append '2' to files.

I'm not sure where Kihaji is coming from; if developers hate Gentoo (or its users) it's because they break stuff with arcane build flags and odd setups.