Last night I was taking a look at the web server configuration that was set up by default when I installed Fedora. The /var/www/html was specified as the document tree. I also noticed that Squirrelmail was set up by default as well in /usr/share/squirrelmail (or something like that). In the httpd.conf file I fail to find a reference to Squirrelmail as an alias. I am wondering how this works. I can connect on the web as http://myserver/webmail (example) and it finds the /usr/share/squirrelmail directory.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 20:58, Dennis M Gray wrote:
Last night I was taking a look at the web server configuration that was set up by default when I installed Fedora. The /var/www/html was specified as the document tree. I also noticed that Squirrelmail was set up by default as well in /usr/share/squirrelmail (or something like that). In the httpd.conf file I fail to find a reference to Squirrelmail as an alias. I am wondering how this works. I can connect on the web as http://myserver/webmail (example) and it finds the /usr/share/squirrelmail directory.
In /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf there is this...
# Load config files from the config directory "/etc/httpd/conf.d". Include conf.d/*.conf
which loads squirrelmail.conf
Ron
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:52PM -0400, Ron Goulard wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 20:58, Dennis M Gray wrote:
Last night I was taking a look at the web server configuration that was set up by default when I installed Fedora. The /var/www/html was specified as the document tree. I also noticed that Squirrelmail was set up by default as well in /usr/share/squirrelmail (or something like that). In the httpd.conf file I fail to find a reference to Squirrelmail as an alias. I am wondering how this works. I can connect on the web as http://myserver/webmail (example) and it finds the /usr/share/squirrelmail directory.
In /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf there is this...
# Load config files from the config directory "/etc/httpd/conf.d". Include conf.d/*.conf
which loads squirrelmail.conf
Ron
Installing and setting up squirrelmail is so simple, why would you use the rpm anyway since there is actually nothing to compile?
Using the tar.gz package and putting a link from squirrelmail-version to a directory possibly named webmail or squirrelmail makes it easy to switch versions just by changing the soft link. That way you can test new versions of squirrelmail by untaring the package, deleting the old link and linking the new source directory.
jay
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 09:21, Jay Daniels wrote:
Installing and setting up squirrelmail is so simple, why would you use the rpm anyway since there is actually nothing to compile?
Using the tar.gz package and putting a link from squirrelmail-version to a directory possibly named webmail or squirrelmail makes it easy to switch versions just by changing the soft link. That way you can test new versions of squirrelmail by untaring the package, deleting the old link and linking the new source directory.
I agree with you, but I've had this conversation before. What it came down to previously, is that some people just get spooked when faced with 'source code' and would rather just use a package manager that will take care of the 'spooky stuff' for them.
It's unfortunate (in my view) because there's a lot of power to be had at a command prompt. It's not for everyone though.
Some people have differently sized comfort zones and the more you try to push them to explore before they're ready, the harder they fight back.
Ron
On Wednesday 05 May 2004 06:39 am, Ron Goulard wrote:
I agree with you, but I've had this conversation before. What it came down to previously, is that some people just get spooked when faced with 'source code' and would rather just use a package manager that will take care of the 'spooky stuff' for them.
Ron, I've been unafraid of source code since before some members of this list were born, but the fact is that there are some good reasons for using package mangers.
The one that easily comes to mind is that with a package manager I can just run apt-get automagically every night, and keep a few hundred systems updated.
It's unfortunate (in my view) because there's a lot of power to be had at a command prompt. It's not for everyone though.
As far as command prompts are concerned, I laughed when I read the thread about how to use all the new desktop tools to set up groups for multiple users to have access to the same files; for command-line guys like you and me it would have taken under a minute to set up everything from the command line.
But even command line users can find lots of reasons to use RPM. Especially with YUM and apt-get.
Jeff
Jeff Lasman said:
I agree with you, but I've had this conversation before. What it came down to previously, is that some people just get spooked when faced with 'source code' and would rather just use a package manager that will take care of the 'spooky stuff' for them.
Ron, I've been unafraid of source code since before some members of this list were born, but the fact is that there are some good reasons for using package mangers.
for me to say that i've been unafraid longer than the people on this list have been born would mean that they're around 8 years old =]
but anyway, as i get older and more experienced (28 years, but i've been using linux since 1993 and an admin since 1995) the more efficient i want to be (some call it laziness). so, i no longer get whiz-bang kicks out of compiling things, and i use apt-get to keep my server up to date. it's all a matter of keeping things simple (KISS). why should i have to worry about compiling something if it's already done, dependencies resolved and it's a helluva lot quicker. i've got other things to do.
The one that easily comes to mind is that with a package manager I can just run apt-get automagically every night, and keep a few hundred systems updated.
yum and apt have been life savers for me. i may no longer take care of 150+ servers on a day to day basis, but the handful of fc boxes at home are stress free for me.
As far as command prompts are concerned, I laughed when I read the thread about how to use all the new desktop tools to set up groups for multiple users to have access to the same files; for command-line guys like you and me it would have taken under a minute to set up everything from the command line.
and you can't exactly write a wrapper for GUI tools, can you? that's what i love about most of the gui admin tools for linux, most of them are just wrappers for the cli.
But even command line users can find lots of reasons to use RPM. Especially with YUM and apt-get.
if you have time to worry about compiling all the updates for your system, then you have way too much time on your hands =]
-d
+( duncan brown : duncanbrown@linuxadvocate.net )+ +( linux "just works" : www.linuxadvocate.net )+
-------------------------------------------------- Understatement of the century: "Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones" - Linus Torvalds, August 1991 --------------------------------------------------