On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 11:39 +0200, Mikael Bak wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 10:31, Christian Haugan Toldnes wrote:
> > Much the same way we don't call postfix 'smtp' and apache 'http'.
> > Software has names, and we use those names for our rpm packages.
>
> Maybe rename 'apache' to 'httpd' then. Because that's the name of the
> software. Apache is the name of the group developing httpd (and quite a
> few other software too).
I think what bothers me about the apache example is that the package is
called 'apache', but the service is called 'httpd' (really the same
issue as the openssh-server/sshd issue that started this thread).
# swup --upgrade apache
# service httpd restart
On the other hand, I like the fact that whatever web server actually is
installed could be invoked by 'service httpd start'. On the third hand,
this means only one web server can be called 'httpd', even though you
could run more than one web server on the same machine on different
ports or different interfaces.
(what would be really cool here is if service supported referencing
groups of services by name. "service httpd start" would start any and
all web servers, "service httpd-apache start" would only start the
installed apache. Of course this only becomes really useful IF people
are going to run more than one of a service on a machine, but it may
make what software is installed more obvious and easier to use).
I agree with Christian that apache calling their webserver 'httpd' is
disingenuous. /usr/sbin/httpd and /usr/sbin/thttpd seem related, even
though they are not.
Because there is a lot of software under the "apache" moniker, maybe
"apache-httpd" would make more sense for the package name. But this
doesn't make anything less confusing. Would the server portion of
openssh be "openssh-server" or "openssh-sshd"? That is
"provider-binaryname" or "provider-capability". "openssh-server" seems
as generic as "httpd" in this regard -- what if openssh starts a new
project (highly unlikely, considering the openssh branding -- compare to
the apache branding, for example).
I personally don't think that any distribution should be like every
other distribution, because hopefully the users have some investment in
using a distribution so they become accustomed to the differences and
quirks, but I do think it is important for a distribution to be
internally consistent.
--
Andy Bakun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
tsl-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.trustix.org/mailman/listinfo/tsl-discuss
