httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Names
Date Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:14:27 GMT
Randy Terbush wrote:
> 
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > 
> > > It's just that, a problem :-)
> > > 
> > > No really, I think that some sort of agreement is needed. For example,
> > > the httpd.conf file vs. the apachectl file.
> > > 
> > > I, for one, would say that we should rename httpd to apache.
> > > We should wait for 2.0 though to do that. In the meantime, we note
> > > that the server is called Apache, and under UNIX the process name
> > > is httpd and under Win32 it's apache. Ugg.
> > 
> > That isn't good enough. Either we call the Unix version apache, the
> > Windows version httpd, or I sulk.
> > 
> > I still think my original suggestion is the way to go: call the Unix
> > version apache and softlink httpd to it.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Ben.
> 
> I agree. A symlink on the UNIX side is in order.
> 

How about a hard link instead :)


-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message