Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Using Ubuntu 12.04, are there any differences between installing Apache httpd using sudo apt-get install apache2 (as the guide of Ubuntu says - ) or following the steps on the Apache documentation (

I tried both ways; in the first case (using apt-get) the server seems to work - I open a browser page and I got it. In the second case I need other packages (apr, apr-util and pcre) and so I abandoned the attempt.

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The first way you did the install was using packaged and precompiled version of apache provided by your linux distribution that cares about dependencies and automatically install needed packages for apache to work.

The second way you did the install was using source code provided by apache foundation and you have to care your self for dependencies according to the manual recommendation/requirements.

Unless you need a particular version of the server, I recommand you stick to the version provided by your linux distribution, it's easier and it will avoid you the hassle of taking care about dependencies, patches and updates.

share|improve this answer

You should generally install your software from repository packages rather than from source. Installing software from packages automatically resolves dependency issues, all files are kept in the right place and it's more easy to update the software. Install software from source if your linux distro doesn't support version of software that you need to use. That way you'll need to resolve all dependency issues manually.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.