* Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * 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?
>
> 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.
>
Especially since most distributions of apache i've seen do this:
/etc/init.d/apache -> apachectl -> httpd
With the current proposal, this would turn into:
/etc/init.d/apache -> apachectl -> httpd.sh -> httpd
which seems absurd.
Could we, instead:
provide an init.d style script ourselves, that just calls apachectl. Then
let apachectl do all the leg work.
This doesn't change current behaviour, but also provides a lightweight
script for those who want it...
Cheers,
-Thom
--
Thom May -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Overfiend> Lords and squires,
<Overfiend> Were you aware of the fact that you could increaseth the size of
your penis by as much as half a cubit? Come visit the apothecary
and essay the new miracle tonic by Dr. Goodfellow! You'll have
all the fair maidens screaming, 'Good Knight!'
