Apache Software Foundation's[1] web server[2] is, in fact, called "httpd" not "apache". The Gentoo ebuild calls it "apache". I'd recomend to rename it to "httpd" or "apache-httpd". Thanks. [1] http://apache.org [2] http://httpd.apache.org/ Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
move to apache herd.
we already had a discussion on this and decided it will remain apache though i don't recall the facts...
We are re-considering it now.
The package and binary should not be named as plain 'httpd'. That is too generic. However, I'm open to the binary being called apache-httpd / apache2-httpd, and the package being apache-httpd.
My 2 cents worth: Calling the package 'www-apache/httpd' is something I could live with. However, if we're going to move apache into 'www-servers', I could live with the package being called 'www-servers/apache-httpd'. I'm perfectly comfortable with the package name remaining unchanged. The upstream binary is called 'httpd', and we should try and be as close to upstream as possible. That said, we have to rename some of the apache binaries anyway so that we can have apache1 and apache2 installed at the same time. I've never come across a single user who had any trouble understanding that 'apache2' is, in fact, the Apache httpd server v2.0.x. I'd rather we left the binary names as they are. Just an opinion, Stu
I am for package renaming and moving from net-www/apache to www-servers/apache-httpd, but against binary renaming. it should remain apache and apache2. httpd is too generic.
I think vericgar has the right idea. With the only comment that the config file is httpd.conf (which I think was agreed to earlier, and put in place during the overlay merge?)
+1 for package renaming, either www-apache/httpd or (prefered) www-servers/apache-httpd -1 for binary renaming!
One vote for a binary named httpd (or atleast have httpd somwhere in the name). About beeing to generic: apache is too generic IMHO while httpd is exactly what it is. Apache is just an organization, apache-cocoon, apache-tomcat, apache-ant? There are many things apache. While httpd might conflict with other httpd's apache-httpd[2] would be an acceptable solution. See the Gnome HIG for a little rant on the subject: http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/desktop-integration.html#menu-item-names
Not to mention, that everything in the ASF just started with the apache web server. "A patchy web server" => apache web server. you see, it's not that far away. although, httpd is too generic. What about the right of tomcat to be called httpd. Tomcat is really an HTTP server, let's say an HTTPD daemon. Well, or the shorter form: httpd. That's not wise. However, Apache was IIRC the first web server that named himself "httpd". Though, I do understand why ppl still want it to be that way - just like the same reasons for why other ppl want it to be named "apache". just my2cents[tm].
Hrmm any news on this? I now consider the comments on renaming the binaries totally invalid, that would really be pointless and break too much stuff... To the comments about package renaming: NO. :) "apache" is that the world calls it under Gentoo, and that it should remain... The move to www-servers is acceptable and ok, but it should still remain www-servers/apache, that way there for sure are no possibilities for someone misunderstanding it: it's the Apache WWW-Server (Webserver), and that way we won't complicate things needlessy, break binpkgs, break deps... And for no apparent benefit than some "I think apache-httpd is a cooler name!"... But anyone calls it "apache" here, and if you talk about apache on Gentoo, anyone knows what you're referring to... Best regards, CHTEKK.
+1
We've decided that, when it will be moved (during the next months), it will go to www-apache/apache, so the name stays the same, it just changes into its own, dedicated category. Best regards, CHTEKK.
move is done now, see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/51003
I have noticed that etc-update changed /etc/portage/package.use on some of my servers and it appears related to this change. It looks like it changed the entry for net-www/apache to www-servers/apache in package.use. Can you explain how this can be?
(In reply to comment #15) > I have noticed that etc-update changed /etc/portage/package.use on some of my > servers and it appears related to this change. > > It looks like it changed the entry for net-www/apache to www-servers/apache in > package.use. Can you explain how this can be? Because we *did* the package move ? :)
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > I have noticed that etc-update changed /etc/portage/package.use on some of my > > servers and it appears related to this change. > > > > It looks like it changed the entry for net-www/apache to www-servers/apache in > > package.use. Can you explain how this can be? > > Because we *did* the package move ? :) I meant, could you explain how and why portage would change a local package.use.
