Help finding Apache 2.2.4 x86_64

March 20, 2007 11:03 AM

I can't seem to find the rpm for Apache 2.2.4 x86_64 for RedHat 4 and/or CentOS 4.4... does anyone know where it is or if it even exists? Gracias.
posted by hummercash to computers & internet (8 answers total)

Personally, I find that it's a better practice to hand-compile the daemons you run on a server. If there's a security update for them you don't have to wait for someone to roll that patch into a package for your distribution, and if you need to use compile-time options that weren't used by the package maintainer, it's a trivial task to recompile and add them. Just grab the Apache source and build it, it's pretty painless.

Also, I hope you mean Fedora Core 4, not Red Hat 4...
posted by autojack at 11:14 AM on March 20, 2007

sorry, i was just typing what i was told... im not the one maintaining the box, im just the one who happens to have an account here
posted by hummercash at 11:29 AM on March 20, 2007

Also, I hope you mean Fedora Core 4, not Red Hat 4...
Since you mention Centos 4, you probably mean RHEL4, RedHat Enterprise Linux 4. Have you tried searching for RHEL... note that this doesn't seem to be the standard version for RHEL/CentOS 4, so you'll be installed an rpm compiled by who-knows-who, and you probably are better off compiling it yourself if this is any kind of production system.
posted by bendybendy at 12:29 PM on March 20, 2007

Hummercash, you might want to ask your colleague why he's using a Linux distro like RedHat/Fedora/CentOS, whose main selling point is often their support mechanisms (since their package management system is often woefully outmoded...i.e. RPM), but then has to ask someone to post on a community blog to find crucial software packages.

Seems to me he'd be better off using distros like Gentoo, Arch Linux, Debian/Ubuntu, etc, which are either entirely source-based or have fairly easy to use options for compiling your own custom packages and inserting them into the package management system.

That said, there's likely a similar method for creating RPMs from source (I'd certainly hope so) so he may want to look into that as well. Google finds me an IBM DeveloperWorks article (always high quality, btw) here.
posted by cyrusdogstar at 1:21 PM on March 20, 2007

What's the reason for needing Apache 2.2.4? 2.0.59 is, IIRC, the most recent version of Apache that CentOS 4 / Redhat 4 supports...

Yep, 2.0.59-1.el4-s1.5... all those numbers after the -59 are the patch status of the package in Redhat's nomenclature. That tells me that it's been updated with patches backported from more recent versions of Apache.

The reason to use CentOS/RHEL is that the packages are pretty much guaranteed by Redhat to be stable.. and if they are, there's almost always an upgrade path that will be compatible with what you're already running on your server without you needing to change configuration files. The jump from Apache 2.0.x to 2.2.x can be pretty big depending on what you're doing/using.

Autojack: He means Redhat Enterprise Linux 4, not Fedora Core 4. There is a RedHat 4 that's recent - RHEL.

cyrus: I'm a RHEL administrator and I don't think 2.0.59 is that outdated... ;) The jump to Apache 2.2.x can break a box, because you need to upgrade a whole ton of core libraries -- OpenSSL being just one of them -- to a version that isn't supported, and you quickly get into dependency hell as you need to upgrade and recompile sshd, et. al. Apache 2.2.4's mod_ssl told me it needed OpenSSL .98a last time I tried to compile it.

There is a fairly easy method of creating RPMs from source if you can get your hands on a .spec file that someone else has written for that distro and that piece of software, but I wouldn't advise running Apache 2.2.x on a CentOS / Rhel 4 box. It's called rpmbuild.

That being said, CentOS 5 is in beta... I couldn't find packages anywhere in any of the repos, but chances are you can compile the source RPM from it on CentOS 4 without many changes.

Please don't create a mess by compiling from source. Package management systems exist for a reason. It's a pain in the ass to the sysadmin that will have to come in after you and clean up the box.
posted by SpecialK at 2:59 PM on March 20, 2007

I don't think 2.0.59 is that outdated

Sorry, wasn't meaning to imply that it was. Hell, I'm using 2.0.58 on production myself :D

Please don't create a mess by compiling from source. Package management systems exist for a reason.

Absolutely agreed. I can't use any distro anymore that doesn't provide an interface for adding custom packages to the system.
posted by cyrusdogstar at 3:28 PM on March 20, 2007

If you use a distribution with a package management system, like RHEL, please stick to this system. If you absolutely want to use newer versions of the programs provided by the distributions, be sure to create packages when recompiling the software, so that the package management system can continue to keep track of the software versions.

RHEL 4 includes the 2.0 series of apache, if you want 2.2 you'll need to upgrade to RHEL5/CentOS 5. RHEL 5 was released last week and it includes Apache 2.2. I've been testing it for a couple of weeks from the gold master, and I am very pleased with it. YMMV of course.

CentOS 5 is currently in beta, and will be released in a couple of weeks.

@Cyrus: you might want to ask your colleague why he's using a Linux distro like RedHat/Fedora/CentOS, [...] but then has to ask someone to post on a community blog to find crucial software packages.

RedHat does include this 'crucial' package, just not in this version. Which is a good thing. The point of RHEL is that it provides a stack of programs, and keeps this stable during the lifespan of the distribution. This includes not updating to new versions of software whenever they become available. (Which is different from not updating it and backporting security fixes, which they obviously do.)

If you want newer versions, this does indeed imply you'll need to update your distribution. If you want to work on bleeding edge, there are other distributions that provide this kind of flexibility. They fulfill a different need. (Wether you want to use them on a server system is something else.)
posted by lodev at 5:44 AM on March 21, 2007

Comments above regarding the dangers of mix-n-matching stock RPMs with custom built ones (especially those coming from unknown parties) are very true.

That being said however, these are a few of the repositories and search engines out there in case they meet your immediate need.

http://dag.wieers.com/rpm/
http://rpm.pbone.net/
http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/

Tools are also available to assist you in creating your own from source...
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
posted by vitrum at 10:53 AM on June 21, 2007