httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:30:32 GMT
Thom May <thom@planetarytramp.net> writes:

> * James Cox (imajes@php.net) wrote :
> > no! no! leave apachectl to behave as it always has done. could someone
> > consider vetoing this argument based on backwards compatibility?
> > 
> >  -- James
> Agreed - why do we need this many layers of indirection? what does it buy
> us having apachectl call a script that calls httpd?

To me it sucks that apachectl is more than an init script interface
(i.e., that you need to do "apachectl -V" in some circumstances
because there is no other shell script to set things up correctly).  

On the other hand, there is suckage associated with an extra layer of
indirection between apachectl and httpd.  

There would be suckage associated with apachectl and some other shell
script doing the same environment setup.  

The question I guess is which sucks the most.

-- 
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Mime
View raw message