Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS

[Thom May]

* James Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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?
apachectl is supposed to _control_ apache - it reads and defines the environment
as necessary, and runs the binary. putting that stuff in a seperate script 
seems pointless and unfriendly. It also makes problems harder to debug, as
it adds another layer where problems can arrise.
Cheers,
-Thom