[SWLUG] Compiling Apache

[Terry John]

Sorry I'm a bit late getting back on this, it must have got caught in my
spamscan cleanup. i.e. it was in amoungst a pile of spam & got
accidentally deleted. To cut a long story short I think I've fixed it
now but I'll fill in the rest below in case it's of use to someone else.

I'm not entirely sure what "compiling apache against" a pcre library
means but when I checked the Makefile there was only 1 line that copied
a couple of pcre files. So I renamed those files and symlinked in the
system equivalents and it seems to work

cd /usr/local/newapache/include
mv pcre.h pcreorg.h
mv pcreposix.h pcreposixorg.h
ln -s /usr/include/pcre/pcre.h pcre.h
ln -s /usr/include/pcre/pcreposix.h pcreposix.h

>Terry John wrote:
>> Does anyone have experience of compiling apache from source code?
I've
>> done it but I have a problemette.
 
Jonathan Wright wrote:
>I don't think that PHP would be using the pcre library statically 
>compiled into Apache unless it was specifically compiled against it
(and 
>then no command-line version used).

Not entirely sure. There was no specific pcre compilation

Jonathan Wright wrote:
>As to the failures, do you have any error messages, or do they just
die. 
>Can you run the programs from the command line (you may have more error

>messages that way)?

Just error messages as they occured

>Terry John wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure it's not the libphp.so module as that is the same one
>> for both installations.

Jonathan Wright wrote:
>Both installations are pointing to the same libphp.so or have you
copied 
>the library between them?

Just copied the library

>Terry John wrote:
>> I've tried using different pcre source but it usually fails to
compile.
>> I managed to hack the compile once but the resulting exe wouldn't run
>> :-(

Jonathan Wright wrote:
>I take it from this you tried working with --use-prce=DIR (or whatever 
>the ./configure command option is)?

Not entirely sure. I did a phpinfo(); and copied the settings from
there.

>Terry John wrote:
>> I don't want to use the original RedHat install because there are
some
>> patches that we need to apply here. & I don't want to patch &
recompile
>> the original RedHat code cos I'm scared :-)

Jonathan Wright wrote:
>RedHat, et. al., patches tend more to be back-ports of updates to later

>versions. Looking towards stability, not just as a program but for it's

>API's and configuration, later releases which have changes for security

>or stability reasons will be back-ported to the current version rather 
>than just releasing the new version.

>httpd-2.0.48-27 means Apache 2.0.48 on it's 27th Patch Level.

Yup, I knew that one :-)

Jonathan Wright wrote:
>What's you reason for trying to compile from source rather than use the

>pre-packaged binary?

Those that are cleverer than me have identified apache bugs that get in
the way of the code we are using. I don't know the details off the top
of my head but fixes have been sent to apache but they haven't been
incorporated in the main distributions yet. I guess they are just low
priority. Until then whenever we power up a new server I just apply the
patches and use that apache instead of the supplied one.

-- 
  Jonathan Wright                           jonathan at netwrker.co.uk
                                              http://netwrker.co.uk

  cat /dev/random (you never know, you may see something you like!)

  2.6.20-gentoo-r7-netwrker-b4 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2100+
  up 10 days, 14:01, 1 user, load average: 0.78, 0.51, 0.64

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.