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 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.
I am to migrate a Websphere machine (including the applications which run on it) to a new machine. They wanted a clean install of the OS and WebSphere, so I did that. I also took a full file backup of all of the applications they had on the old server. The problem is that to re-install them on the new server, the WebSphere dialog asks me for the JAR/EAR/WAR file, which I don't have.
Is there any reasonably easy way to simply extract the backup of the WebSphere application files I have taken from the old maching, and simply configure the new machine to use them? WAR, etc. is a nice feature to have, but to be forced to use it seems silly.
Edit: The existing WebSphere server is still up and running in production.
Edit: The old server is WAS 3.5, which means it doesn't even have an export function, sadly. Also, the directory where it actually runs the content from has a completely different structure (consisting of like a a %/Web and %/Servlet, where % is the context path of the application). In the "Install" section, it doesn't even mention EAR or WAR, only JAR. I am currently thinking that perhaps the best thing to do might be to just copy the directory over to another WAS 3.5 system and then upgrade that system (and hope it converts the folder structure and updated the config as part of the upgrade).
Edit: The closest thing I have found to a solution so far is this link:
http://www.javazoom.net/services/newsletter/was4.html (though I am not sure if that tool is available or relevant for WAS 7.x).
This has to be a problem other people have run into before, but I can't find a solution anywhere on the WEB.
Thank you!
Here do they have sample Jacl scripts one can use to export/import appserver's configuration. So that is what you can start with. If your new bow uses the same version of WAS (and the same topology if it is not a standalone box) as the old one, it might be a (relatively) safe process.
Migration between different versions of Websphere might be somewhat more tricky, but I'm sure IBM published at least one redbook on that topic.
If you still have the old server running, than just export the apps and you have the war/ear files. However, If you don't know the configuration for the apps, you are screwed. However, I am sure IBM has tools that you can use. Some of the paid tools look even nice and user friendly (at least according to their sales demos). I can't tell you what you need, since I don't know what documentation you have for your apps. But as it looks like there is not much there, otherwise you would just install the application the same way they were installed on your old server and use the binaries (war, ear, jar) that are archived somewhere.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Every time a new developer joins the team or the computer a developer is using changes, the developer needs to do lots of work to setup the local development environment to make the current project work. As a SCRUM team we are trying to automate everything including deployment and tests so what I am asking is: is there a tool or a practice to make local development environment setup automated?
For example to setup my environment, first I had to install eclipse, then SVN, Apache, Tomcat, MySQL, PHP. After that I populated the DB and I had to do minor changes in the various configuration files etc... Is there a way to reduce this labor to one-click?
There are several options, and sometimes a combination of these is useful:
automated installation
disk imaging
virtualization
source code control
Details on the various options:
Automated Installation Tools for automating installation and configuration of a workstation's various services, tools and config files:
Puppet has a learning curve but is powerful. You define classes of machines (development box, web server, etc.) and it then does what is necessary to install, configure, and keep the box in the proper state. You asked for one-click, but Puppet by default is zero-click, as it checks your machine periodically to make sure it is still configured as desired. It will detect when a file or mode has been changed, and fix the problem. I currently use this to maintain a handful of RedHat Linux boxes, though it's capable of handling thousands. (Does not support Windows as of 2009-05-08).
Cfengine is another one. I've seen this used successfully at a shop with 70 engineers using RedHat Linux. Its limitations were part of the reason for Puppet.
SmartFrog is another tool for configuring hosts. It does support Windows.
Shell scripts. RightScale has examples of how to configure an Amazon EC2 image using shell scripts.
Install packages. On a Unix box it's possible to do this entirely with packages, and on Windows msi may be an option. For example, RubyWorks provides you with a full Ruby on Rails stack, all by installing one package that in turn installs other packages via dependencies.
Disk Images Then of course there are also disk imaging tools for storing an image of a configured host such that it can be restored to another host. As with virtualization, this is especially nice for test boxes, since it's easy to restore things to a clean slate. Keeping things continuously up-to-date is still an issue--is it worth making new images just to propagate a configuration file change?
Virtualization is another option, for example making copies of a Xen, VirtualPC, or VMWare image to create new hosts. This is especially useful with test boxes, as no matter what mess a test creates, you can easily restore to a clean, known state. As with disk imaging tools, keeping hosts up-to-date requires more manual steps and vigilance than if an automated install/config tool is used.
Source Code Control Once you've got the necessary tools installed/configured, then doing builds should be a matter of checking out what's needed from a source code repository and building it.
Currently I use a combination of the above to automate the process as follows:
Start with a barebones OS install on a VMWare guest
Run a shell script to install Puppet and retrieve its configs from source code control
Puppet to install tools/components/configs
Check out files from source code control to build and deploy our web application
I stumbled across this question and was very suprised that no one has mentioned Vagrant yet.
As Pete TerMaat and others have mentioned, virtualization is a great way to manage and automate development environments. Vagrant basically takes the pain away from setting up these virtual boxes.
Within minutes you can have a completely fresh copy of your favourite Linux distro up and running, and provisioned exactly the same way your production server is.
No more fighting with OSX or Windows to get PHP, MySQL, etc. installed. All software lives and runs inside the virtual machine. You can even SSH in with vagrant ssh. If you make a mistake or break something, just vagrant destroy it, and vagrant up to start over fresh.
Vagrant automatically creates a synced folder to your local file system, meaning you don't need to develop within the virtual machine (ie. using Vim). Use whatever your editor of choice is.
I now create a new "Vagrant box" for almost every project I do. All my settings are saved into the project repository, so it's easy to bring on another team member. They simply have to pull the repo, and run vagrant up, and they are literally ready to go.
This also makes it much easier to handle projects that have different software requirements. Maybe you have some projects that rely on PHP 5.3, but some newer ones that run PHP 5.4. Just install the version you want for that project.
Check it out!
One important point is to set up your projects in source control such that you can immediately build, deploy and run after checkout.
That means you should also checkin helper infrastructure, such as Makefiles, ant buildfiles etc., and settings for the tools, such as IDE project files.
That should take care of the setup hassle for individual projects.
For the basic machine setup, you could use a standard image. Another option is to use your platform's tools to automate installation. Under Linux, you could create a meta-package that depends on all the packages you need. Under Windows, a similar thing should be possible using MSI or the like.
Edit:
Ideally, instead of checking in helper infrastructure, you check in the information that allows the build to generate the helper infrastructure. This is the approach taken by e.g. the GNU build system (autotools etc.), or by Maven. This is even more elegant, because you can (theoretically) generate infrastructure for any (supported) build environment, thus you are not bound to e.g. one specific IDE, and settings in the helper infrastructure (paths etc.) don't need to duplicate the main project settings.
However, this also a more complex approach, so if you can't get it to work, I believe checking in stuff like IDE files directly is acceptable.
I like to use Virtual PC or VMware to virtualize the development environment. This provides a standard "dev environment" that could be shared among developers. You don't have to worry about software that the user could add to their system that may conflict with your development environment. It also provides me a way to work to two projects where the development environments can't both be on one system (using two different versions of a core technology).
Use puppet to configure both your development and production environment. Using a top-notch automation system is the only way to scale your ops.
There's always the option of using virtual machines (see e.g. VMWare Player). Create one environment and copy it over for each new employee with minimal configuration needed.
At a prior place we had everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) in SCM (clearcase then SVN). When a new developer can in they installed ClearCase|SVN and sucked down the repository. This also handles the case when you need to update a particular lib/tool as you can just have the dev teams update their environment.
We used two repo's for this so code and tools/config lived in separate places.
I highly recommend Blueprint from DevStructure. It's open-source and your use case is actually the exact reason we originally wrote the software. Our goals have somewhat changed, but it still is the perfect tool for what you are describing. In short, you can create reusable server configs - dead simple configuration management. I hope this helps!
https://github.com/devstructure/blueprint (Blueprint # Github)
I've been thinking about this myself. There are some other technologies that you could throw into the mix. Here's what I'm currently setting up:
PXE based pre-seeded installation images (Debian Squeeze). You can start up a bare-metal machine (or new virtual appliance) and select the image from the PXE boot menu. This has the major advantage of being able to install your environment on physical machines (in addition to virtual appliances).
Someone already mentioned Puppet. I use CFEngine but it's a similar deal. Essentially your configuration is documented and centralized in policy files which are continually enforced by an agent on the client.
if you don't want a rigid environment (i.e. developers may choose a combination of tool-sets) you can roll your own deb packages so new devs can type sudo apt-get install acmecorp-eclipse-env or sudo apt-get install acmecorp-intellij-env, for example.
Slightly off-topic, but if you run a Debian based environment (i.e. Ubuntu), consider installing apt-cacher (package proxy). In addition to saving bandwidth, it will make your installations much faster (since packages are cached on your local network).
If you're using OSX and working with Rails. I'd suggest either:
https://github.com/platform45/let-there-be-light
https://github.com/thoughtbot/laptop
If you use machines in a standard configuration, you can image the disk with a fresh perfectly configured install -- that's a very popular approach in many corporations (and not just for developers, either). If you need separately configured OS's, you can tar-bz2 all the added and changed files once a configured OS is turned into your desired setup, and just untar it as root to make your desired environment from scratch.
if you're using a linux flavor, you've probably got a package management system: thinks .rpm for fedora/redhat, or .deb for ubuntu/debian. many of the things you describe already have packages available: svn, eclipse, etc. you could roll your own packages for company specific software, create a repository (perhaps only available on the local network) and then your setup could be reduced to a single bash script which would add the company repo to /etc/apt/sources.list (debian/ubuntu) and then call a command like,
/home/newhire$ apt-get update && apt-get install some complete package list
you could use buildbot to then automate regular builds for company packages that change often.
Try out DevScript at http://nsnihalsahu.github.io/devscript .
Its one command like ,
devscript lamp or devscript laravel or devscript django . In around a few minutes ,depending on the speed of your internet co