Talk:Apache, Installing with PHP

Understood, but...

Read this page, and your arguements are valid, but there isn't a banner saying "ports only". I've been running FreeBSD (and Linux Gentoo) for about 4 years, going through versions 4, 5 and now 6. There are some things that I'd automatically use for ports: wget, lynx, perl, blah blah.. but for some programs I prefer to install myself, so I know what is being installed, where its going and how it will work.. ie --with-xx..

So now you'r saying it's a good idea to write in source to offer an alternative?? "...Maybe you could write us an article specifically about building applications from tarballs..." Talk about contradict yourself!

Regarding the below comment: See above. Oh and I use the crons just to simplify and group up tasks that get run, So I can see a large list of all things that get run at specified times: hourly, monthly, and at boot.

You can't rub tarballs away, they will always exist cos there will always be source junkies around.

So... Want me to remove my invalid page? Or will it be reinstated to a "from source" guide?

==Are you a Linux guy, ColdFire?== Just kinda curious as to why you'd compile Apache and PHP raw-dog rather than use the ports tree (and run a cron job to start it at boot time rather than use a /usr/local/etc/rc.d script). --Jimbo 01:49, 27 March 2006 (EST)

not to mention

using wget instead of fetch --Dave 13:00, 28 March 2006 (EST)

Is There No Thing Called Free Speach?

So is "from source" not welcome here? What is the point of me writing articles, only for you to just change the whole lot?

Installing_Apache_with_PHP was a "from source" guide, for one simple fact: You know where everything goes, and you can then easily query errors. And not like all, some people do prefer source installs -- which I'd thought I'd give the user a choice!

But it seems this a pkg_add based wiki. Great. What gives?

Actually

Actually around here we generally prefer the ports tree, which Dave also gave the nod to. Which is also building from source, but has the (rather distinct) advantage of also creating entries in the ports database, as well as making sure that any FreeBSD-centric patches and file location changes get made, you can use portupgrade to update the port later, etc etc etc.

However I was still interested to see your "from tarballs" approach. It's not something I'd normally recommend on a FreeBSD machine when there is a port for that application, for the reasons mentioned above, but it's nice to see it done a bit. After all every now and then it is possible to run across something you want that there isn't already a port for!

Maybe you could write us an article specifically about building applications from tarballs rather than using the ports tree, and common gotchas and how to fix them?

PS: the talk page for your article is really a better place for this kinda thing, I had already asked you a leading question about some of this stuff there. =) --Jimbo 10:02, 29 March 2006 (EST)

from source

I've moved the last two comments from my talk page to this one for easier readability. Installing from ports is exactly the same as installing from source with the added bonus that Jimbo brought up: the install of the program gets added to the ports db, so the BSD package manager knows that the package is installed. Additionally, it's a lot less work and much easier to update (see Ports Tree, Updating) with portupgrade -- so if there's a patch or fix or upgrade to apache 1.3 or php4, you can update it pretty easily. Installing from ports is the preferred method, but I've added the pkg_add method for those who don't have the time, patience or hardware firepower to compile everything.

--Dave 11:25, 29 March 2006 (EST)