Bugzilla Bug 78622

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.