Apache Update Error when updating directadmin packages

R

rjd22

Verified User
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
80
When updating to httpd 2.4.9 I'm getting a fatal compile error:

Installing mod_htscanner2-1.0.1...
[Thu May 01 10:50:56.557053 2014] [core:crit] [pid 25777] AH00102: [Thu May 01 10:50:56 2014] file mod_setenvif.c, line 637, assertion "is_header_regex_regex != NULL" failed
sh: line 1: 25777 Aborted /usr/sbin/httpd -l
apxs:Error: Sorry, no shared object support for Apache.
apxs:Error: available under your platform. Make sure.
apxs:Error: the Apache module mod_so is compiled into.
apxs:Error: your server binary `/usr/sbin/httpd'..

*** There was an error while trying to install mod_htscanner2-1.0.1.

I'm running on the latest version of CentOS 5.x. I did some googling but found nothing conclusive sadly.
 
If you don't need htscanner, you could disable it by editing /usr/local/directadmin/custombuild/options.conf and change from yes to no:

htscanner=no

Then run ./build update and recompile Apache and PHP again. I can only speak for my own setup, and I run mod_php + mod_ruid2, and with that setup htscanner should be set to "no".
 
Do you have any customized configs in /usr/local/directadmin/custombuild/custom ? If not, would there be a chance to get access to the system?
 
Hello @smtalk there are no configs customizations. Send me a PM for the system access.
 
Some of our servers running php-fpm had the same issue. Ended up with switching to mod_php and mod_ruid2
 
So many tries to run php-fpm successfully, but all have problems. Is it really worth it to run php-fpm in production? - mod_php and mod_ruid2 does the job here for now, not saying that I might change later on, but it's just to early to embrace 2.4.9 and php-fpm now, that's just my humble opinion. Better safe than sorry.
 
FAF said:
So many tries to run php-fpm successfully, but all have problems. Is it really worth it to run php-fpm in production? - mod_php and mod_ruid2 does the job here for now, not saying that I might change later on, but it's just to early to embrace 2.4.9 and php-fpm now, that's just my humble opinion. Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

Not all have the problem as you said. I do not seem to have any problem with PHP-FPM (except Webmail link which is now solved.) Also run under CentOS 5 and Apache 2.4.9. One server uses PHP 5.5 (disable htscanner as smtalk suggested.) while another use PHP 5.3. These two servers seems to work fine for me.
 
nmb said:
Not all have the problem as you said. I do not seem to have any problem with PHP-FPM (except Webmail link which is now solved.) Also run under CentOS 5 and Apache 2.4.9. One server uses PHP 5.5 (disable htscanner as smtalk suggested.) while another use PHP 5.3. These two servers seems to work fine for me.
Click to expand...

Hi nmb

I'm glad that you don't have any issues, or only have a few, but I still feel that it's a little cutting-edge or immature for production.

CentOS 5 has EOL on Q1 2014, but is maintained to March 31st, 2017. Personally I hate when EOL is approaching, and like to be ahead a little. I ignored CentOS 4 EOL on one server for a little while and got hacked, maybe that's why I'm biased towards keeping a safe distance to EOL. I'm also worried about errors in the log and hate not to have control. To run services which are not fully tested and stable in production is not for me, it ruins my sleep not knowing that my system can come to an crawl during the night because of bugs, which I could have prevented, and did not because I was to adventures and bold, trusting the very latest and greatest bleeding edge, trying to squeeze a few milliseconds out of it. Not to speak of security and getting a bad name.

Again I'm glad that you don't have issues, but many others do. I said all, which was incorrect. Have just read many reports complaining about issues and bugs, wondering why someone would risk their sanity implementing bleeding-edge in production. I like to upgrade though, and be up-to-date, but I always make a ton of research trying to figure out the best combo for my services. Yes, I'm always a few steps behind, but nevertheless, the services are stable and reliable and makes my clients happy and that is what I want to have in production.

Sorry if I offended you.

/FAF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top