Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-22 Thread Manoj Kasichainula
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 they

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Greg Ames
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Joshua Slive
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Greg Ames
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 the

RE: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Ryan Bloom
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 responsibility, use

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Greg Ames
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 the

RE: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Joshua Slive
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.

RE: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Jeroen Massar
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 SNIP Due to inheritance (export) of

RE: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Jeff Trawick
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 start.

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Jeff Trawick
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 the

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Cliff Woolley
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 ;;

RE: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Scott Hess
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 environment

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Andrew Ho
Hello, JMDue to inheritance (export) of environment variables I usually start JMApache after doing a: JM# for i in `export | cut -f3 -d' '|cut -f1 -d'='`; do export -n $i; done JMWhich cleans them all up nicely. One reason for doing this is so that JMphpinfo() shows all these nice Enviroment

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Manoj Kasichainula
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Manoj Kasichainula
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 running

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-16 Thread Jos Backus
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
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 taking

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Aaron Bannert
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Jeff Trawick
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 thing that

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
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 linking

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Jeff Trawick
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 I know

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Marc Slemko
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.

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Jeff Trawick
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 isn't

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
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? -- justin

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Joshua Slive
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 isn't

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Jeff Trawick
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 same as

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Jos Backus
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Joshua Slive
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 the syntax for

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Greg Stein
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

Re: is httpd a valid way to start Apache?

2002-05-15 Thread Jos Backus
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,