I am evaluating the Crowd SSO by Atlassian. Now to get apache to use Crowd for authentication, there is a connector available by the vendor.
Problem
Unfortunately they do not provide anything for my OS (AIX). Instead they provide source code with instructions. Now the example here uses yum -y install autoconf automake gcc httpd-devel libcurl-devel libtool libxml2-devel mod_dav_svn subversion-devel to download the required packages for which there is no alternate in AIX (AFAIK).
So I went to the AIX toolbox and got some packages. For the rest, I took Mr Perzl's help. And while installing the rpms ended up getting dependency errors.
Question
Do I go with
The solution given here dependency hell.
IBM way
Something else which Google and my limited exposure to AIX are not telling me.
I am not *nix expert, rather at basic user level. And any installations are actually done by the admins. I need expert advice so as to get it right and efficiently if possible.
Appreciate if someone would like to retag this question for getting attention from the right people.
It has been a while since I struggled with AIX and Linux, and have success with the Crowd Connector on Linux. So, having taken a look at both links, I would say:
The IBM documentation is only for the packages supplied with their Toolbox and there is a risk that if you use it for other things, you may end up with a dead-end as the utilities may refuse to play ball.
With Mr. Perzl's way, you are building it brick by brick, with known certainty. The main risk is that the right versions may not be available and/or one of the build tools may not work. In that case, you may still have to tweak the source and/or the build/make files to compile properly, but it will eventually work.
Once you have a compiled plugin and it works with a certain version of Apache, you will not need many of the dependencies, so the instructions you give to the admins to deploy will be minimal. Most likely, the runtime dependencies will be mod_dav_svn, curl and libxml
Please post an update when you get it working.
Related
recently I tried to install an apache webserver on an ubuntu machine. I discovered two ways to do that.
The first one is to install it like it is described at this source apache docs using ./configure, make, make install to the downloaded apache sources.
And the second way is to install it via apt-get update && apt-get install apache2.
I also noticed that when I run the installation via apt-get it seems that there is a different configuration of the apache for example the directory /etc/apache2/* is only available over this way of installation. So when I install it manually the directories sites-available, sites-enabled, ... are just missing.
Is there also a way to get these folders when running the manual installation?
Where do this differences come from?
This is nothing that can be summed up in a few sentences. You basically ask: how does software management work under Linux systems? In short:
using the apt utility on a Ubuntu based system you are using the systems package management system, that should nearly always be what you want. That way the system can take care to keep your apache installation up to date, you can remove software again without leaving artefacts, the software is guaranteed to work with the system libraries already installed in your system. Potential conflicts are resolved. You can be certain that the configuration matches your system.
using the build system is a more generic (archaic) way: you do not only install the software, you build it from scratch from the software sources prior to installing it. That is only possible for OpenSource software, obviously. This certainly allows for more flexibility. But you are responsible yourself for a whole lot of things, starting with first setting up a complete build system, then configuring the package, select what you actually want to build and last but not least you are yourself responsible to update software you installed that way. This rarely is a good idea, with two exceptions:
you absolutely cannot find a pre build package for your Linux distribution or
you want to make own modifications to the software itself
The difference in the folder layout of the apache configuration is a separate thing. There are two aspects that come into play here:
you can change that layout using the uncounted build options offered by the build system (namely the options you can hand over to the configure utility on the command line).
typically the configuration of complex software packages (like the apache http server with all it's modules) is broken up into
various sub folders so that you can keep an overview and
allows additional packages to drop their additional configuration in place (this is mostly useful for prebuild packages)
Long story short: in 99,8% of all cases you want to use prebuild packages prepared for your distribution. That is the power of the software management systems under Linux (that still have no comparable counterpart in other operating systems).
I extensively use Cygwin on a Windows 8 environment (I do not want to go ahead and boot/load Linux directly on the machine). I use the OCamlIDE plug-in for Eclipse and have experienced relatively no problems using this workflow setup.
However, I would like to use Batteries so that I may make use of use of its dynamic arrays among a few other interesting features that will speed up my development process.
I have tried this method: http://ocaml.org/install.html, but I get the following error:
$ sh ./opam_installer.sh /usr/local/bin
No file yet for i686:CYGWIN_NT-6.2-WOW64
What am I missing and how would I configure Cygwin so that it can accept the Opam installer? When I tried yet a different way of building Opam, I got:
'i686-w64-mingw32-gcc' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
as a Makefile error and reason for building failure. It seems something is wrong related to mingw32-gcc, what do I need to install and/or configure for my Cygwin to get it to compile/build things properly. I have wget and curl installed as well.
My overall question: What is the best way to get Batteries installed on my system with the minimum of time spent tracing all of its dependencies by hand? Is there a way I can just build the library module, such as BatDynArray and the includes:
include BatEnum.Enumerable
include BatInterfaces.Mappable
That way I can just call them directly in my code with open...;; and/or include...;;;
OCaml works beautifully on Windows with WODI, which is a Cygwin-based distribution that includes Batteries and tons of other useful packages (which are a pain to install manually on Windows).
I urge you to take a shot at WODI, which I believe to be an indispensable tool for the
rest of us, the forgotten souls, who have to deal with Windows.
First of all, include does not do what you think it does. open Batteries should be exactly what you're looking for. OPAM is not yet solid on windows (maybe Thomas could give an update on where things stand).
Frankly, I would recommend to install a linux on a VM, you should be able to get started with OPAM instantly then. Otherwise, take a look at this package manager for OCaml which focuses on cross platform support: http://yypkg.forge.ocamlcore.org/. I've never tried it myself however. The last package manger you could try is GODI, I'm not sure about its windows support though.
Finally, if none of these options work then it should be possible to install batteries from the source. All you need is OCaml and make. And if there are problems with this approach then you should definitely follow up on them either here or on the bug tracker because batteries does intend to support windows AFAIK.
Here is my situation. I am on a Mac using Brew as my package manager. I had mono installed on my machine and I was doing all sorts of development in C#. I was doing web development, gui development, ect. When I tried to update my machine using Brew, I got an error. Uninstalling Mono solved the issue.
So, what I did is I toyed around and I created a 2nd user on my machine. Now, this user doesn't need anything to work. I just need Mono and Mono Develop to work on this user without installing anything globally. Everything needs to be installed locally.
So to be specific, I am the only on who uses my machine. My /Users directory looks like this.
/Users/dillon
/Users/dummy
So if I could install mono, in let's say:
/Users/dummy/.mono
Then in my .profile:
export MONO_PATH=/Users/dummy/.mono
Obviously this isn't a perfect world but I was wondering if anyone is an expert on this subject?
(Also, I use this dummy user for other stuff, I use it for Wine and I have a collection of software from school on this user.)
You need to build Mono from source to install it into a custom location (in which case you can install it anywhere you like).
You can install MonoDevelop.app anywhere, but getting it to use your custom Mono is a bit trickier. You might be able to make it work by mucking around with the relevant environment variables though.
How to install Mono in a custom location and the relevant environment variables is all covered here: http://mono-project.com/Parallel_Mono_Environments
I want to play around and check out Apache's couchdb as a possible back-end for a web-app that I am designing. Therefore I want to have an instance of couchdb, but also to be able to throw it away when the testing is done. The development computer is an Ubuntu laptop (not server). The problems are:
The Ubuntu repository has couchdb 1.0, but the couchdb website strongly recommends to install 1.1, built from source.
I have Erlang built and installed from source, because the Erlang distro from the repository is defective. I don't see the point in installing another Erlang aside it.
couchdb has a lot of dependencies, including a whole bunch of perl libs, that I really don't need, and prefer to throw away when I'm done.
So I am looking for a way to either:
Install couchdb 1.1 as a package that can be easily uninstalled, or
Build couchdb from source, with as few as possible installed dependencies, so when I'm done I can just delete it. Preferably, do this without building another Erlang distro, but configuring it to use the existing one.
Is any of these possible, and how? Thanks in advance.
Btw, I am aware of the build-couchdb project, but from what I read, it requires installing all the build dependencies in advance, which is undesirable, because it will leave a whole bunch of dangling packages in my system, without being a dependency of a couchdb package. It also fetches a copy of Erlang, which is redundant for me.
(Dear moderators: This questions combines issues that relate not only to programming, but also to server administration, Unix software, and, particularly, Ubuntu Linux issues. Therefore, it might be suitable for a few other stack exchange sites. I recon it is most likely to be answered here, since this kind of hackery is often done by programmers. However, if I am wrong, feel free to migrate it, and I apologies in advance for your troubles.)
You could install CouchDB into a chroot jail
A chroot is a way of isolating applications from the rest of your computer, by putting them in a jail. This is particularly useful if you are testing an application which could potentially alter important system files
From the Ubuntu instructions on creating a chroot jail
Another option, assuming your laptop has the appropriate hardware virtualization support, is to use KVM.
The KVM option might be more helpful in the long run as you could move the VM's disk image onto a server.
I have been reading page after page after page about the benefits of using YUM package installer and how NOBODY should built installs from source files (which again makes no sense to me) yet the repositories and source builders always package files in Tarball format, leaving a TON of work (which usually ends up going wrong) to the individual instead of formatting SRPMs for the end user.
Has the world gone mad? I feel like I am taking crazy pills!
Well, first of all there's more to life than just RPM and YUM. An SRPM would be (somewhat) useless to Debian, for instance.
As for why you'd use a package repository over building everything yourself, well I don't know about you, but I've much rather just run (I'm using Ubuntu so I have apt-get instead of yum):
# apt-get install firefox
Than trying to figure out all the dependencies, as well as all the dependencies dependencies, make sure I have the correct versions of everything, download/build/install any that I don't have (or are out of date: if updating existing dependencies, make sure the newer versions don't break any existing software that I have and make sure I don't end up with 15 different versions of the same thing), and only after all that then download/configure/build/install firefox.
Then realise I'll also want Open Office or MySQL and start all over again!
That said, there are some packages that I install the latest version of from source. For example, I run my media centre off MythTV and I always like to build the latest version of that from Subversion. But even then, with a package manager, that's as easy as:
# apt-get build-dep mythtv
> cd ~/src/mythtv/
> svn co <svn repo of mythtv>
> configure && (etc)
That is, the package management software already knows all the dependencies for MythTV and it can download and install them automatically. Why spend hours tracking it all down manually?
In the end, it sounds to me like maybe you'd prefer a distro like Gentoo... that's the benefit of Linux, of course. If you don't like how things are run in the Fedora/RedHat distribution, you can just choose a different one.
There are a few reasons to use a packaging infrastructure (like yum):
Creating "installations" is much easier to do, due to automatic dependency installation. From the simple yum install blah to creating chroots with mock/--installroot, or live CDs, etc.
Managing those installations. From the obvious yum update to operations which are much harder to do otherwise like: yum --security update, yum --bz=1234 update-minimal, yum --disablerepo=testing distro-sync.
Auditing those installations. The obvious examples here being yum history (not available in plain RHEL-5 atm.) and yum verify.
...however speed is not a factor, for instance Fedora rawhide moves as fast as gentoo.
RHEL-5 does not move that quickly, because it's 3 years old and is not supposed to break ... not because it's managed using yum/rpms. There are third party providers, like iuscommunity, which release co-installable newer releases for various packages. Or if you need to you create your own.
Or you can run a production server on Fedora rawhide or gentoo, both will have the latest packages really quickly ... I would not recommend that option though.
Among other things, tarballs are system independent and YUM appears to be RPM-based and thus mostly usable by Linux only (plus Netware and AIX, so as I said, Linux only :) )