Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Robert Collins
- Original Message - From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, isn't that postinstall copying superfluous? Wouldn't it be better to have the cyghttpd.dll already in usr/bin in the tar archive? yes, basicly I have done this because after make install we result with

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Robert Collins
- Original Message - From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, what votes are given for leaving /etc/httpd ? Uhmm, simply put I don't care beyond voicing my opinion. However I also won't care is 1000 users complain when another www server is pacakaged and collides with apache. Rob

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 11:28:00PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: - Original Message - From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, isn't that postinstall copying superfluous? Wouldn't it be better to have the cyghttpd.dll already in usr/bin in the tar archive? yes, basicly

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Stipe Tolj
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 11:28:00PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: - Original Message - From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, isn't that postinstall copying superfluous? Wouldn't it be better to have the cyghttpd.dll already in usr/bin in the tar archive? yes,

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Stipe Tolj
BTW, I'm also chaning paths for $logfiledir and $proxycache dir to the named apache instead of httpd. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Stipe Tolj
Corinna Vinschen schrieb: On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:53:43PM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote: No I don't think so. I'll change the /etc path thing and re-package to apache_1.3.22-3, now! apache-1.3.22-3, please! A dash, no underscore. Apache distributions do use a underscore, BTW. I know

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Robert Collins
, January 13, 2002 5:13 AM Subject: Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2 Corinna Vinschen schrieb: On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:53:43PM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote: No I don't think so. I'll change the /etc path thing and re-package to apache_1.3.22-3, now! apache-1.3.22-3, please! A dash

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Robert Collins
=== - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2 On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:12:48AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: If you want to be able to have both apoache 1.3 and 2

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Charles Wilson
Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 5:13 AM Subject: Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2 Corinna Vinschen schrieb: On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:53:43PM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote: No I don't think so. I'll change the /etc path thing and re-package to apache_1.3.22-3

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Robert Collins
- Original Message - From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like to put in a vote for NOT treating '_' and '-' identically. .. In fact, I *thought* setup/upset didn't treat '_' any differently than 'a' but perhaps I was wrong... So did I - I'm going to check. If they are treated

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:22:14AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: - Original Message - From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like to put in a vote for NOT treating '_' and '-' identically. .. In fact, I *thought* setup/upset didn't treat '_' any differently than 'a' but perhaps I

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Robert Collins
=== - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So did I - I'm going to check. If they are treated the same now, then we'll have to check that no pacakges will get broken if we change. Otherwise I'll be changing it:} From parse_filename(): for (ver = p; *ver;

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 07:54:12PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:22:14AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: - Original Message - From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like to put in a vote for NOT treating '_' and '-' identically.

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-11 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Stipe, 2002-01-11 14:45:15, du schriebst: * changed $sysconfdir from /etc/httpd/conf to /etc/httpd, as proposed by Geritt. * changed $libexecdir from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/apache, as proposed by Chuck, Ernie and Corinna. httpd apache ? I would prefer to have it all the

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-11 Thread Stipe Tolj
* changed $sysconfdir from /etc/httpd/conf to /etc/httpd, as proposed by Geritt. * changed $libexecdir from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/apache, as proposed by Chuck, Ernie and Corinna. httpd apache ? I would prefer to have it all the same name: `apache' like this: #

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-11 Thread Robert Collins
- Original Message - From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since `httpd' is more general I would prefer `apache' from these two layouts. I disagree here! It's common style to have the protocoll name for /etc and /var sub-directories. httpd is not the protocol name. It's a hangover