On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:34:59PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > But what's the point of such a symlink?
It does no harm, and if a beginner is following a tutorial that expects /etc/httpd/log, it will still work. > The binary is called apache2, so that I prefer /etc/apache2. Why use > /etc/httpd, in particular assuming the fact that several HTTP servers can be > installed on the machine? The binary is called apache2 in Debian only because it was (re)named that by the Debian maintainers at a time when you could co-install apache2 and apache 1.x. (However, my memory is poor but I think the apache1 packages had the binary as 'apache' anyway, so this doesn't excuse that…) The reason I prefer httpd is because that's the upstream name for it. Renaming binaries to something different from upstream is a potential case of confusion (and from experience dealing with many other web and systems admins, it *is* a cause of confusion in this case.) IMHO, we (Debian maintainers) should make as few changes to upstream as possible, and only where there's a clear benefit to do so. You can install several httpd servers on one machine, yes. If other httpd servers also tried to use the httpd name, then (assuming they were command-line compatible) the alternatives system exists for this situation. However, none of the other web servers you might want to install call their binary httpd, because apache got there first, and to do so would be pointless and confusing. -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150313103801.ga17...@chew.redmars.org