On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
Max Bowsher writes:
I'd like some opinions...
Do we really need another top level directory /srv ?
First, thanks for looking at the package!
To answer your question, Cygwin generally follows the FHS, and FHS
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
Max Bowsher writes:
I'd like some opinions...
Do we really need another top level directory /srv ?
First, thanks for looking at the package!
To answer your question, Cygwin generally follows the FHS, and
Max Bowsher schrieb:
Reini Urban wrote:
You usually do run both at once, for testing purposes.
You do!?!
Sure. On port 81.
Apache2 usually has weird handler problems, esp. the redhat apache2,
which I want to test against.
Sometimes redirect and HTTP 1.1 handling is also different.
But it's
Max Bowsher writes:
I'd like some opinions...
Do we really need another top level directory /srv ?
Ciao
Volker
Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
Max Bowsher writes:
I'd like some opinions...
Do we really need another top level directory /srv ?
First, thanks for looking at the package!
To answer your question, Cygwin generally follows the FHS, and FHS 2.3 says
/srv is the proper place for such things. SuSE has
Max Bowsher schrieb:
I'd like some opinions...
Apache HTTPD 2.0 is a little schitzophrenic about what it should be
called: httpd or apache2 - what do you think the Cygwin package
should be named?
There exists no httpd2, just httpd2-naat (Network Appliance
Administration Tool on Mandrake).
Reini Urban wrote:
Max Bowsher schrieb:
I'd like some opinions...
To avoid conflict with the 1.3 package, I've appended a 2 to the names
of all the executables (and manpages). Horrible, but I can't see any
better way. Can you?
--prefix=/opt/apache2
*NO WAY*. This is supposed to be a proper
