server distributions

[blu-5a1Jt6qxUNc at public.gmane.org (Tom Metro)]

John Chambers wrote:
> Thus, I've installed apache on more machines  that  I  can  remember.
> I've repeatedly tried the supplied apache, and given up after an hour
> or so of trying to learn where they hid all the pieces.

I've had similar issues in a more minor sense with Debian and Ubuntu. 
The apache packages have always worked out-of-the-box for me, but 
implementing custom local tweaks sometimes requires consulting the 
distribution documentation.

One example of this is the way they configure apache2 sites using 
/etc/apache2/sites-available/ and /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/ 
directories. It's a good organization scheme, but you won't find 
information on it at apache.org.

Most distributions seem to do a poor job of documenting the 
distribution-specific customizations. Probably because in most cases the 
changes are very minimal. The man page occasionally covers them. 
Sometimes the README file will cover the changes, if you know where to 
find it. (In this case I found 
/usr/share/doc/apache-common/README.Debian.gz and 
/usr/share/doc/apache/README.Debian.gz, which are for apache 1.3, but 
all the directories relating to apache2 only had changelogs, which isn't 
the same thing.)

What's really needed is a package-specific wiki, tied-in to the web UI 
for browsing packages. That way for any given package in the 
distribution, you know exactly where to look for the 
distribution-specific notes.

With Debian/Ubuntu, there are third party sites, like:
http://www.debian-administration.org/

that can be useful. (And where I found the documentation for the above 
issue. I'll have to file a bug suggesting Debian customizations to the 
man page.)


> Then I go to apache.org, untar it, edit the config script, type a
> couple of "make" commands...

You're paying a price in the long run by forgoing your distribution's 
packaging system. Once configured, installing updates should be fairly 
painless. Not entirely the same can be said for the tar distribution.


> With the "official" distro,  I  know where  everything  gets
> installed  and what files need attention.

While my point above is that none of the distributions (that I've used) 
necessarily excel at documenting their local customizations, some do a 
better job than others, and I'd recommend avoiding distributions that 
make you go digging too much for the info.

The flip side of that coin is that if you're mostly using one 
distribution, then you spend the time once learning the 
distribution-specific layout, and in the end that's no different from 
learning the upstream project's layout.

  -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.