James Carlson wrote: > Octave Orgeron writes: >> Looks good. But I was wondering if the /usr/apache2 directory makes >> sense? I mean when apache 3.x comes out, will that mean that we'll have >> apache, apache2, and apache3 directories in /usr? I saw with the PSARC >> for PHP, the route was /usr/<app>/<version> kinda like how we do Java >> and Perl today. Should the apache versions be reorganized to follow >> this as well? > > It's a good question. > > The original reason for /usr/apache and /usr/apache2 was to allow for > a transition between incompatible versions -- presumably, /usr/apache > would go away after a new Solaris release. If we're no longer caring > about maintaining compatibility for Apache (that is, we're willing to > place incompatible bits in the same location), then I'd argue that > there's no real reason to have the two separate directories anymore, > and we should just collapse them.
I do not have a strong preference for either keeping /usr/apache2 and creating /usr/apache2.2, or just overwriting /usr/apache2. Valid arguments can be made for either approach: - overwriting /usr/apache2 keeps things simpler, at the expense of ... overwriting. It's a one-time pain. - keeping /usr/apache2 and creating /usr/apache2.2 makes installation simpler, and does not overwrite anything. No installation pain. However this creates the possibility of *bad* conflicts in the future: - application <X> links against apr in /usr/apache2 - application <Y> links against apr in /usr/apache2.2 - application <Y> links against <X> and <Y> This is a recipe for disaster. I can very easily change the location to /usr/apache2.2. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM
