RE: Suggestion for FAQ

> First, I'd like to say that Apache is a complicated piece of software
> to configure, let alone compile from source codes. When I
> first started
> reading quotes like "Don't worry, you can run Apache 2.0 on a
> different
> port, while continuing to run Apache 1.x on port 80" I almost fell out
> of my chair. That's stuff that nerds would do, it's not
> stuff you suggest
> as a first approach to a general audience. I should qualify this by
> saying that I have personally patched and compiled and configured
> Apache before. But it takes a lot of time, and you have to understand
> a lot of complicated details if you want to do it right, and you have
> to be very interested in web server features.
>
I find subversion to be MUCH easier to get up and running in apache mode than cvs in pserver mode. First of all, depending on your distribution, you might be able to use one of the pre-built packages. The RPMs on Red Hat systems make installing apache and subversion a trivial task IMO. I could get a subversion repo up and running from start to finish in less than five minutes.

Since I can't use the RPMs on Fedora Core (I don't recall why atm), I now build from source. I used to build the Apache 1.3 series and found that to be a complicated mess. Not so with Apache 2. Apache2 builds so much more nicely from the source. If you just want an apache to serve up SVN (sort of a dedicated SVN server), follow the extremely simple instructions in the INSTALL file. Once you have everything built, getting a repo up and running again is a very trivial task.

Anyway, just a different perspective. Frankly, it doesn't take a "nerd" to get an apache up and running to serve a subversion repository. Just my $0.02 worth.

Cheers,
Craig

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 15 16:59:10 2004