On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:17:55PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> If httpd is to be left as-is on Unix (i.e., maybe it works maybe it
> doesn't), then perhaps apachectl needs to be pushed as the way to
> access all httpd functionality.
One thing that I seem to recall is that we've talked about taki
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:21:04AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Is there any reason that httpd couldn't read/parse/source envvars
> file itself? That sort of sucks, but perhaps that's a way to
> get around this? -- justin
Naw, you get dynamic linking failures as soon as you exec() the
proc
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:17:55PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > If httpd is to be left as-is on Unix (i.e., maybe it works maybe it
> > doesn't), then perhaps apachectl needs to be pushed as the way to
> > access all httpd functionality.
>
> One
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:26:42AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Naw, you get dynamic linking failures as soon as you exec() the
> process.
Yeah, that's true. Moving the start/restart logic into httpd still
seems worthy though.
I know that libtool can (supposedly) relink binaries to change the
At 01:26 PM 5/15/2002, you wrote:
>On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:21:04AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > Is there any reason that httpd couldn't read/parse/source envvars
> > file itself? That sort of sucks, but perhaps that's a way to
> > get around this? -- justin
>
>Naw, you get dynamic link
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:26:42AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > Naw, you get dynamic linking failures as soon as you exec() the
> > process.
>
> Yeah, that's true. Moving the start/restart logic into httpd still
> seems worthy though.
yeah
>
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:44:37PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Wouldn't we have to do a full link-edit on the target machine to make
> that work portably? One of the nice things about binbuilds is that we
> don't give a rip whether the user has a working ld (just an example).
> We don't want to
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> pkill -HUP httpd would all fail if the binary isn't called httpd.
Erm... that isn't a bad thing.
Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How many problems does it cause? Having to give gdb a different name
> > is a problem (minor), but how many others are there?
>
> ps and other process utilities won't filter on httpd. ps -C httpd,
> pkill -HUP httpd would all fail if the binary
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> At 01:26 PM 5/15/2002, you wrote:
> >On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:21:04AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > Is there any reason that httpd couldn't read/parse/source envvars
> > > file itself? That sort of sucks, but perhaps that's a way to
> > > get around this
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:55:37AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > pkill -HUP httpd would all fail if the binary isn't called httpd.
>
> Erm... that isn't a bad thing.
I'm assuming you mean that I should *only* do:
ps -p `cat /where/my/pid/file
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > How many problems does it cause? Having to give gdb a different name
> > is a problem (minor), but how many others are there?
>
> ps and other process utilities won't filter on httpd. ps -C httpd,
> pkill -HUP httpd would all fail if the binary i
Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about
>
> - Incorporate the restart stuff into httpd
> - Make apachectl a simple shell script that just sets up the environment
> and calls httpd
> - Encourage everyone to use apachectl
Would the syntax for start/restart/configtest be exactly the
What about moving into the other direction and moving the process management
portion into a separate set of tools so it can be used with other daemons
besides httpd? This would also improve portability of the mechanism: no
worries about pid file races and staleness, differing versions of
ps/kill/k
On 15 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What about
> >
> > - Incorporate the restart stuff into httpd
> > - Make apachectl a simple shell script that just sets up the environment
> > and calls httpd
> > - Encourage everyone to use apachectl
>
> Would t
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:49:46PM -0701, Jos Backus wrote:
> What about moving into the other direction and moving the process management
> portion into a separate set of tools so it can be used with other daemons
> besides httpd? This would also improve portability of the mechanism: no
> worries
I wrote:
> It would be great to have a BSD-licensed version of something like djb's
> daemontools.
> That would be totally fine/cool. Are you volunteering? :-)
I would if I was even half as decent a programmer as some of you :-)
Seriously, a decent process controller that would allow starting,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I know that libtool can (supposedly) relink binaries to change the
> link paths. Could that be something we could do?
I don't think that libtool has any magic that will produce a major breakthrough
here. I played around with it back when binbuild was totally non-func
Who would be in favor of this, or parts thereof? I'm anxious to see a
consensus so that steps toward the goal can be filled in over time.
1) httpd can't be used directly on Unix because of environment
variable settings
or "shouldn't", take your pick; I suspect that we're better off if
ht
On 16 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Who would be in favor of this, or parts thereof? I'm anxious to see a
> consensus so that steps toward the goal can be filled in over time.
+1 That looks good to me. Really, I have no particular problem with httpd
being the wrapper script, but it would ce
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > Who would be in favor of this, or parts thereof? I'm anxious to see a
> > consensus so that steps toward the goal can be filled in over time.
>
> +1 That looks good to me. Really, I have no particular problem with httpd
> being
Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:trawick@rdu88-251-
> 253.nc.rr.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?
>
> Who would be in favor of this, or parts t
Joshua Slive wrote:
> On 16 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > Who would be in favor of this, or parts thereof? I'm anxious to see a
> > consensus so that steps toward the goal can be filled in over time.
>
> +1 That looks good to me. Really, I have no particular problem with httpd
> being
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> My own opinion is that we leave things exactly as they are today. If
> you are running the binary by hand, you are taking some responsibility
> for knowing what you are doing. That means having the environment
> variables setup correctly before you start
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Who would be in favor of this, or parts thereof? I'm anxious to see a
> consensus so that steps toward the goal can be filled in over time.
>
> 1) httpd can't be used directly on Unix because of environment
>variable settings
Due to inheritance (export) of environmen
> > My own opinion is that we leave things exactly as they are today. If
> > you are running the binary by hand, you are taking some responsibility
> > for knowing what you are doing. That means having the environment
> > variables setup correctly before you start.
> >
> > If you don't want that
"Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My own opinion is that we leave things exactly as they are today. If
> you are running the binary by hand, you are taking some responsibility
> for knowing what you are doing. That means having the environment
> variables setup correctly before you sta
Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 16 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > Who would be in favor of this, or parts thereof? I'm anxious to see a
> > consensus so that steps toward the goal can be filled in over time.
>
> +1 That looks good to me. Really, I have no particular problem
On 16 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Who would be in favor of this, or parts thereof? I'm anxious to see a
> consensus so that steps toward the goal can be filled in over time.
>
> 1) httpd can't be used directly on Unix because of environment
>variable settings
Fine.
>
> or "shouldn't"
Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 3) apachectl becomes a simple wrapper script for httpd
>
> You could do both 2 and 3 I suppose, but ... nah. #2 is enough to remove
> the complexity from apachectl.
Step 3 is what removes the complexity from apachectl. Step 2 is what
gives httpd t
On 16 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Step 3 is what removes the complexity from apachectl. Step 2 is what
> gives httpd the features required for step 3.
I guess I don't see:
start)
stop)
graceful)
restart)
httpd -k $1
;;
startssl)
httpd -DSSL -k start
;
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > My own opinion is that we leave things exactly as they are today. If
> > you are running the binary by hand, you are taking some responsibility
> > for knowing what you are doing. That means having the environm
Hello,
JM>Due to inheritance (export) of environment variables I usually start
JM>Apache after doing a:
JM># for i in `export | cut -f3 -d' '|cut -f1 -d'='`; do export -n $i; done
JM>Which cleans them all up nicely. One reason for doing this is so that
JM>phpinfo() shows all these nice Enviroment
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:49:46PM -0701, Jos Backus wrote:
> What about moving into the other direction and moving the process management
> portion into a separate set of tools so it can be used with other daemons
> besides httpd?
I've pondered writing something like this, but then I also ponder
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:00:13PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Due to inheritance (export) of environment variables I usually start
> Apache after doing a:
> # for i in `export | cut -f3 -d' '|cut -f1 -d'='`; do export -n $i; done
> Which cleans them all up nicely.
You can also do this by runni
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:27:46PM -0700, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:49:46PM -0701, Jos Backus wrote:
> > It would be great to have a BSD-licensed version of
> > something like djb's daemontools.
>
> I've (mostly) written replacements for supervise, setuidgid, and
> tc
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:16:56PM -0701, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:27:46PM -0700, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > I've (mostly) written replacements for supervise, setuidgid, and
> > tcpserver. They use Single Unix APIs, haven't been ported to APR, and
> > have no docs yet, but
37 matches
Mail list logo
