Thanks!
--
/etc/default/apache2: NO_START
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/21377
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is a direct subscriber.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
Problem is fixed in 2.2.4-1
** Changed in: apache2 (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress = Fix Released
--
/etc/default/apache2: NO_START
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/21377
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is a direct subscriber.
--
Yep, I agree that this is a problem. I spent about an hour trying to work out
why it wouldn't start. Running
/etc/init.d/apache2 start
does nothing, outputs nothing, and returns success. Also the comment in the
script which says
Stupid hack to keep lintian happy. (Warrk! Stupidhack!).
Some other comments.
Firstly, I am not that familiar with apache, and so have never heard of
apache2ctl. All I know is that on at least Debian/Ubuntu systems, the
convention for starting a service is to use /etc/init.d. So when this
doesn't work, it is more than a minor annoyance.
Secondly, the
Even if the /etc/default/apache2 thing is from keeping things blowing up
when having multiple webservers installed. This is _not_ the way.
What next? ftp servers? jabber servers?
I highly suggest that packages which install a webserver automatically
remove all other webservers from /etc/init.d
Pascal, I disagree with you on your last point. User-friendliness and
security should be kept orthogonal. Making something hard to use is not
a good way of achieving security.
--
/etc/default/apache2: NO_START
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/21377
You received this bug notification because you
To some degree you're right, it should be kept orthogonal when it does
not interfere with keeping the system clean.
Having two settings to enable apache is not acceptable...
We have the init system for a reason. That should be used.
We should make the init system user friendly by making a good
If a configuration file says that it shouldn't start it's not an error. It's
behaviour by design.
I can see, though, that the reason it doesn't start should perhaps be more
obvious.
Stay tuned :)
** Changed in: apache2 (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Adam Conrad = Soren Hansen
--
** Changed in: apache2 (Ubuntu)
Status: Unconfirmed = In Progress
--
/etc/default/apache2: NO_START
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/21377
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is a direct subscriber.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I have had this issue as well, and it is definitely a bug. Not
displaying an error message when there is an error is *COMPLETELY*
against the Unix way of doing things. Silence = success, message =
error. I spent days trying to figure out why I couldn't start my Apache
after upgrading to Fiesty
10 matches
Mail list logo
