"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Heck, I'm even fine with completely ditching the old apachectl verbs > >with 2.0.37 and imposing the un-onerous task on admins of converting to > >the httpd syntax. Once that happens the help text for httpd matches > >what apachectl will accept. > > I'm not - apachectl has always been a convience thing.
by the way... with 2.0 on Unix, apachectl is a required thing to ensure that any environment variables (LD_LIBRARY_PATH and others) are set up properly > If we are making > them change their conf to use httpd -k start without specifing -D SSL, I am > still in favor of handling apachectl startssl [and all the silly > flavors thereof.] > > I'm actually against pulling apachectl until version 2.1. Give them some time > to adjust, provide some backwards compatibility for the present time. And > in the meantime, don't break what apachectl already provides. no plan to pull apachectl at all... the issue is when to stop mapping the old apachectl verbs onto httpd options... the user needs to know that all those options that can be passed to httpd can be passed to apachectl with no problem... the separate user interface for apachectl vs. httpd is potentially confusing... -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
