David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote: >>> Note that the mod_php5.so is delivered as a link to mod_php5.2.so >>> although the conf file is php5.2.conf. If we ever needed to support >>> two PHP releases, will Apache likely require different plugins to >>> support both? > >> Though, we might, in future, deliver 2 versions, both of them are >> mutually exclusive . So, a user can have either apache-php52 or >> apache-php53 loaded but having both these php versions loaded in the >> same process doesn't make much sense (at least to me) > > It sounds like calling this package "apache-php5" is reasonable at this > time. If we ever need to rename it to make it more specific, we can do > so. > >> On the sidelines, shouldn't this httpd-<modulename> rather than >> apache-<modulename> ? I am not sure, which one conveys a better >> message here. > > I don't know either but "apache" here matches what we've done with > other packages that include modules/plugins.
The main issue with "apache" vs. "httpd" is that "apache" in a software context refers to 100+ different open source projects, one of which is the web server we refer to here. Some distros refer to it as httpd, some call it apache/apache2/etc. As long as product documentation doesn't refer to it simply as "Apache" I won't lose much sleep.
