Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * James Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > > no! no! leave apachectl to behave as it always has done. could someone > > consider vetoing this argument based on backwards compatibility? > > > > -- James > Agreed - why do we need this many layers of indirection? what does it buy > us having apachectl call a script that calls httpd?
To me it sucks that apachectl is more than an init script interface (i.e., that you need to do "apachectl -V" in some circumstances because there is no other shell script to set things up correctly). On the other hand, there is suckage associated with an extra layer of indirection between apachectl and httpd. There would be suckage associated with apachectl and some other shell script doing the same environment setup. The question I guess is which sucks the most. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
