WordPress.org

Ready to get started?Download WordPress

Forums

apache site file setup? (7 posts)

  1. mfidelman
    Member
    Posted 2 years ago #

    I've been searching all over the documentation, web site, and web in general, and can't seem to find a model apache/sites-available/<wordpress-site> file illustrating the proper configuration for using wordpress with either fastcgi or suphp. Seems like something that would be part of the install instructions, but can't seem to find it. Can anybody point me in the right direction? Thanks!

  2. ClaytonJames
    Member
    Posted 2 years ago #

    Seems like something that would be part of the install instructions, but can't seem to find it

    There's no reason why it would be part of the WordPress installation documentation. It's strictly a server configuration issue.

    Here's a thumb-nail description of what I did to make it work last time I played with Ubuntu. http://pastebin.com/VTnMCznS - But I'll leave you to the research and verification.

    More references:

    "how to" suphp on ubuntu

    "how to" suphp debian

    When you're done, you can use a phpinfo file to verify that suPHP is working and apache is running as CGI/FastCGI.

  3. mfidelman
    Member
    Posted 2 years ago #

    Thanks! Looks very helpful.

    Re. "no reason why it would be part of the WordPress installation documentation:"

    - when installing software that runs under a web server, part of installation IS a matter of pre-requisites and server configuration

    - I've installed an awful lot of packages that include both instructions on "how to configure under [apache|tomcat|....]" as well as, in many cases, files to drop into /etc/apache2/sites-enabled -- and installers will typically drop files into various places under /etc -- the WordPress "5-minute" install is pretty limited when compared to, say "apt-get install mysql"

    Seems like a gap to me.

  4. ClaytonJames
    Member
    Posted 2 years ago #

    Re. "no reason why it would be part of the WordPress installation documentation:"

    - when installing software that runs under a web server, part of installation IS a matter of pre-requisites and server configuration

    While I understand and respect your viewpoint, teaching people how to properly build, configure and secure a web server is substantially beyond the scope of the WordPress forums. It's a huge bonus that you can find a lot of that information here, but it's not a gap in the WordPress documentation by any means. suPHP is just one method by which you can increase the security of your hosting in a shared server environment.

    WordPress "5-minute" install is pretty limited when compared to, say "apt-get install mysql"

    You're mixing apples and oranges. You can't compare installing the WordPress package manually in a web directory to installing mysql on a server from the command line. But, for the sake of enlightenment, if you want to see a real nightmare, open a console and run;
    apt-get install wordpress

    After you've untangled the cluster of symlinked files, non-standard wp-config and broken upgrade feature because a command line install sets the WordPress update path so it can only be updated from a Deb repo (and is always one release behind the secure version of WordPress) the instructions in that 5 minute install using the .zip archive on a properly configured web server starts to make a lot of sense. :-)

    All kidding aside... suPHP is just one of many server security configuration options, and is not a WordPress issue. Teaching people how to build and secure a web server is not the intent of the WordPress software, nor a WordPress installation prerequisite.

    Installing WordPress -vs- Building and configuring a web server. Apples and Oranges in this case.

  5. mfidelman
    Member
    Posted 2 years ago #

    Well, I guess I disagree with you. WordPress is essentially a web service - it lives "inside" a web server, rather than standing alone. As such, configuration of the environment is part of installation and should be documented.

    Personally, I consider this a serious detractor from what is otherwise a very nice piece of software. Given that it's free and open source, complaining without contributing puts me on shaky ground, but I consider it a reasonable piece of input to those who write documentation.

    As examples of people who DON'T consider it apples and oranges, I'll point to:

    Mailman (list manager, depends on underling mail system, and on web server) - install documentation includes sections on:
    - setting up your web server (including lines to add to Apache config files)
    - setting up your mail server (with specific instructions for integration with Postfix, Exim, Sendmail, Qmail)
    - setting up cron jobs

    Sympa (another list manager, depends on database manager as well as the above) - install documentation includes sections on:
    - prerequisites
    -- system requirements
    -- installing perl and CPAN modules
    -- creating a Unix user
    -- creating the database
    - compilation and installation
    - robot aliases (for mail)
    - web setup, including
    -- alternatives (cgi, cgi+suexec, fcgi, dedicated server, notes for specific linux distributions)
    -- detailed instructions for installing the fastcgi version,
    including a specific virtual hosts file
    -- specific instructions for setting up under nginx and lighttpd
    - setting up log files (syslog configuration)
    - note that the included install script (as well as the various packaged versions) does a lot of this (e.g., checks for and installs perl modules, startup/shutdown scripts, cron jobs)

    Among CMS's:
    - MediaWiki has pretty detailed instructions, along with scripts that do a lot of the Apache setup
    - Plone has very detailed Apache configuration documentation (a little out of date, and a separate article rather than part of the main documentation - still, it includes details of getting both virtual hosts running, and configuring SSL)
    - Drupal has some information, but hard to find
    - WordPress and Joomla have rather poor installation documentation by comparison

    Sketchy documentation is understandable, and to a degree excusable. But defending it is another thing entirely.

  6. ClaytonJames
    Member
    Posted 2 years ago #

    Well, I guess I disagree with you.

    That's completely acceptable and absolutely essential for any learning process. I can genuinely understand and appreciate your point of view, and I will respect and defend your absolute right to be absolutely wrong to the bitter end. :-)

    Best wishes!

  7. mfidelman
    Member
    Posted 2 years ago #

    Likewise :-)

    Cheers!

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic