On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:07:53PM -0600, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, David Benfell > I unfortunately missed your clear, earlier statement that you are using > the provided RPM specs which install apr + apr-util as system > libraries. IMO that is not a good idea for most people, in case you > want to install arbitrary software from your system package repository > and have it use the apr + apr-util it is built with and at the same > time have your httpd use the apr + apr-util you selected for that > particular purpose. I don't use the RPM builds myself, never install > into system directories, and don't really know what the considerations > are. Sorry. I think more seriously, I was trying to get too far ahead of my distribution (Contabo 6.5). This became apparent when, having found a way around this problem, I tackled php. Recall that modules, including the one for php, need to be rebuilt for the new version of apache. Taking this on, I rapidly found even more ratholes. I decided it was time for a distribution change. I apologize for my delay in responding to this message. I'm now running on Fedora 20, which comes with apache 2.4. But, just at the stage where I lose mail every time, this seems to be going fairly smoothly. (We'll see when I try sending this message.) I have encountered problems on Fedora, but I think they're related to Fedora's packaging. And I'm trying to get a question in on their community about it. (Their forum server seems to have gone down.) <snip> > > Same error as before, or something different? Can you copy and paste > the exact message? It was the same error. > I don't think your current LD_LIBRARY_PATH actually changes anything. A reasonable suspicion. I'm unable to test it now. Sorry. > > I'm thinking I ought to be able to substitute apachectl for the > start > script with a symbolic link. Would this work? Any reason I > shouldn't? > > Where did you get /etc/init.d/httpd? Is that from an RPM build you did > of httpd 2.4? Yes, incredibly, the spec file seems to do everything including instructing rpmbuild how to build that script. Was I surprised? Yes. But it seems to me to be a strong argument in general for using rpmbuild. That is, if you aren't trying to get too far ahead of your distribution. CentOS 6.5 is just too 'stable' and this isn't the only security-related issue I've had with it (I want Apache 2.4 for perfect forwared secrecy). -- David Benfell <benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the attachment.
Attachment:
pgp4YU8LxlIkX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|