Well, since the OP hasn't provided any more info, might as well continue this discussion...
John Nichel said:
William Hooper wrote:
John Nichel said: [snip]
<gripe> Install from source, not RPM's.
Why?
Custom configuration. And such things as MySQL (the php-mysql rpm is compiled against the 3.x libraries), but since I use 4.x, I would rather compile with that.
So, based on your needs, your blanket recommendation is that everyone should install Apache and PHP from source? Many people are using the provided RPMs just fine.
Not to reopen the "old school vs. new school" debate again, but I feel that if one is going to take on an endouver such as running their own web server, they will be better informed on how to configure/troubleshoot the application if they install from source vs. something like an RPM which is supposed to do it for you. Not to say that RPM's don't work, but in many instances they don't provide what the user thinks he/she is getting. Granted, this is a user issue, and not a RPM issue, but we wouldn't see as many, "why doesn't this work..." questions.
I like how Joe calls it FUD by _some_ members of the PHP community. How about THE member of the PHP community? I defer to just one of the many Ramsus Lerdorf responses....
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-general&m=107920318223044&w=2
So this is to say that php.net mirror servers are not "production-quality"? I can understand the PHP developers suggesting Apache1 over Apache2, but to the extent they go it is (as Joe pointed out) FUD.
"They" are Ramsus Lerdorf, the creator of PHP. The issue isn't with PHP/Apache2 per se, but with third party modules in PHP and Apache2's multi-threading. Joe can call it FUD, but if the creator of PHP says it's not to be considered production stable, I take his word over Joe's. If Joe tells me that Fedora 2 isn't production stable, I'll take his word over someone like Ramsus.
-- John C. Nichel KegWorks.com 716.856.9675 john@xxxxxxxxxxxx
