apache2 vs httpd

[Jean-Michel Bruenn]

I still think httpd should be named apache2. Because httpd stands for
http daemon -> And there's not only apache2. In fact I'd rather like
to have httpd as some sort of alias for lighttpd, apache, and
whatever else http daemons we have in lunar linux.

Someone who lin's httpd should be asked WHICH httpd he/she wants.

But that's just my opinion.

On
Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:25:46 -0700 Auke Kok <auke at foo-projects.org> wrote:

> On 03/12/2012 02:12 PM, Richard B. Pyne wrote:
> > Without considerable improvement, httpd should be moved to zbeta and
> > apache2 should be moved back to www.
> >
> > The httpd module, on a clean install, will not produce a working install
> > (does not activate module mod_slotmem_shm, required by the installed
> > configuration). It does not properly activate optional configuration
> > options such as WebDav, deflate Info, suexec, etc. It also does not
> > configure properly for use with PHP.
> 
> tracked down the issue:
> 
> 1) florin removed apache2 which was at 2.2.x
> 
> 2) php5 doesn't RUN yet with 2.4.x (API breakage)
> 
> so, basically the removal forced you to go to httpd 2.4.x, which breaks 
> php5.
> 
> florin, please consider reverting httpd back to 2.2.22, so at least 
> people with php5 (which includes *me*) can run from moonbase again.
> 
> For now, I've tossed httpd-2.2.22 into my split moonbase.
> 
> Auke
> _______________________________________________
> Lunar mailing list
> Lunar at lunar-linux.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/lunar


-- 
Jean-Michel Bruenn <jean.bruenn at ip-minds.de>