httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] simplified apachectl that passes through options to httpd
Date Fri, 24 May 2002 17:16:04 GMT
At 11:30 AM 5/24/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>"William A. Rowe, Jr." <> writes:
> >
> > err... still a bit redundant, httpd -k start -DSSL should suffice [I'm 
> pretty
> > sure that's what you ment to ask :-]
>yep, I meant "-k start -DSSL" :)
> > >One issue that may affect your opinion: historic apachectl verbs are
> > >to be considered deprecated; the vision is that apachectl is just a
> > >wrapper script whose user interface is the same as httpd.  Thinking
> > >long-term (e.g., Apache 2.1 or whatever), would you want the user to
> > >have to do
> > >
> > >   httpd -k start -DSSL
> >
> > Yes.  How many other server modules [protocols especially, such as
> > pop3 and so on] will beg the same.  It's bogus.
> >
> > If you configure your machine for SSL, then run it as SSL already!!!
>I'm +.6 on removing the "httpd -k startssl" hack already committed (my
>only reservation is due to my lack of interaction with the folks that
>actually use the startssl|sslstart thingie).

They don't [use the httpd thingie]...

>Heck, I'm even fine with completely ditching the old apachectl verbs
>with 2.0.37 and imposing the un-onerous task on admins of converting to
>the httpd syntax.  Once that happens the help text for httpd matches
>what apachectl will accept.

I'm not - apachectl has always been a convience thing.  If we are making
them change their conf to use httpd -k start without specifing -D SSL, I am
still in favor of handling apachectl startssl [and all the silly flavors 

I'm actually against pulling apachectl until version 2.1.  Give them some time
to adjust, provide some backwards compatibility for the present time.  And
in the meantime, don't break what apachectl already provides.


View raw message