Re: [ITP] Apache 2.0

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 20 12:20, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Jun 20 01:57, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > > > There doesn't seem to be any particular consensus between Linux distros
> > > > on whether the package should be called "apache2" or "httpd".
> > > > I have chosen to follow the naming of the official tarball, and call it
> > > > "httpd". (Red Hat/Fedora does the same, FWIW)
> > >
> > > I like "apache2" better, FWIW.
> >
> > The assumption that package name == tarball stem name is somewhat implied
> > by the generic-build-script system. It wouldn't be impossible to work
> > around, but it would be a bit weird.
> >
> > What should the filenames be?
>
> Oh, I don't care.  I just expressed my opinion.  If you're more happy
> with httpd, it's your choice.

I asked on freenode #apache, and the consensus was that there was no consensus.
I'm rather undecided, actually. I think I like apache2 better, but am reluctant to hack the build process overmuch.
I'll investigate how difficult it would really be.

> > > - Why is the library not in /usr/bin as every other shared lib which is
> > > load-time linked?
> >
> > It seemed neater, and eliminating potential problems, to put it alongside
> > the only executable that needed it, so that it would be found independent
> > of PATH.
> >
> > > - Why is it called .so?  I have no problems with run-time linked modules
> > > called .so, we already have a couple of these, but I'm reluctant to call
> > > load-time linked libs .so. Did you test it on 9x?
> >
> > No, I said goodbye to my last 9x machine a *loooong* time ago.
> >
> > > I know for sure that
> > > you can call executables "foo" instead of "foo.exe" on NT, but the same
> > > doesn't work on 9x.  What about load-time linked DLLs?
> > >
> > > - Why are the *.dlla. and *.la files in /usr/sbin?  They belong under
> > > /usr/lib, don't they?
> >
> > The .so naming was specifically to cause this, (it's the only way to stop
> > libtool from putting the dll in ../bin). The reason was to keep all of the
> > files related to this implementation detail in a single directory.
>
> I understand what you are up to and the idea is neat.  But you know that
> cygwin1.dll is in /bin anyway.  If the system can't find cygwin1.dll, it's
> pretty much irrelevant if it finds cyghttpd2core.{so,dll}, isn't it?
> I think it might be better to keep it in /bin and especially keep the dll
> suffix to avoid any potential problem with 9x.  You have been warned ;-)

Good points.
Adjusted locally. Seems to work fine.

Max.