Saturday, June 30, 2007

Apache Experience on Ubuntu@HP 6710b

Well, I have this feeling that the ubuntu apache package that we receive from the repositories is built a bit differently than the standard build for apache.

I was looking into all sorts of apache configuration files after I installed the ubuntu apache package. (apache2 actually). I wanted to change the document root, and enable/disable some modules...couldnt really succeed.

So, for me, the solution eventually was to download the source from httpd.apache.org, its a newer version there, and compile it myself. That was pretty easy. And it worked after that. Then I found all the regular file locations, config files etc. that I have always known about apache.

But, there the catch is, the default installation does not seem to provide/setup automatic startup scripts for init.d kind of locations.

I am still after that task. would post as soon as i find the solution/fix it myself...

regards
raghav..

1 comment:

  1. Later I have found out that Ubuntu has indeed a customized version of apache 2.2.3 packaged for themselves.

    It has a different directory tree structure, and different configuration file name/locations.

    e.g. the conventional httpd.conf is now a zero byte file, and the one config file that is used is called apache2.conf.

    Furthermore, as against having all configuration data in a single httpd.conf file, the configuration is now distributed in separate configuration files for each virtual host. The one virtual host that is active by default is also known as default.

    The configuration files for such virtual hosts are arranged in two directories. sites-available and sites-enabled, latter one normally having links to the first one to allow that virtual host to function.

    Then each virtual host can be configured using its own config file, an xml transformation of the good old httpd.conf.

    The default htdocs (old convention) is not in /var/www (or something like that) but is equally easily configurable from the respective virtual hosts' config file.

    Its not such a bad arrangement after all, once you have to dig through all of it and understand.

    Let me just clarify about the original post, I didn't mean anything negative about the new arrangement/customizations, whatever negativity was visible (if any) must have been due to the frustration out of not meeting the expectation (of getting to see the much seen old configuration mechanism).

    All in all, a customization, though not bad at all.

    kudos to thinkers behind this.

    cheers
    raghav..

    ReplyDelete