Home / ubuntu / Questions / 32820
Accepted
Olivier Pons
Asked: 2011-04-01 05:23:33 +0800 CST

Naming conventions: apachectl, and configuration: do you think this is correct?

  • 772

The batch script to restart the httpd server is called apache2. Apache is a group of volunteers who do far more than just an http server. Calling the script apache2 (apachectl is apache2ctl and so on) is very, very restrictive. How about keeping everything "homogeneous"? The configuration file is, on every distro httpd.conf. Not in Ubuntu. And a lot of stuff like this concerning the Apache "httpd server" configuration / installation. What's the point?

apache2

2 Answers

  1. Best Answer

    I guess there is a case to be made for a name change. But the historical reason for calling it apache is still stronger.

    This is one of those things you can't change without upsetting a ton of people.

    Ubuntu may have started such a convention years ago, or it may have inherited it from the debian folks. But the fact is that now everybody knows such convention in ubuntusphere. It is different in redhatsphere for example. Neither can change its convention since it would break third party scripts, monitoring tools, watchdogs and other not-so-well-written stuff; not to mention stress and confusion to the not-so-eager-to-read-the-release-notes section of the corporate IT crowd.

    That's just the life in the city ;-)

    • 1

  2. While the Apache Software Foundation develops a number of tools, the flagship project is still the Apache web server. It likely gets a relatively small slice of the efforts now. The other projects have other names, and are installed using those names.

    Debian/Ubuntu use http.conf as the base configuration file. This is extended using include mechanisms to provide a more flexible modular configuration system. This allows for configuration files with high cohesion, and minimal coupling.

    A similar argument would apply to installing ubuntu-minimal, which should be host-minimal or server-minimal by your convention. I believe ubuntu-minimal is a better convention.

    EDIT: The distribution needs to support the least common denominator (single configuration file). They have done a good job of sectioning the configuration file so that it easy to split for environments which allow separation of concerns in the their configuration such as Debian/Ubuntu. They also support the use of include files so that users can do their own splitting if they choose.

    Using a single http.conf file for multiple virtual hosts is prone to errors where changes are done to the wrong virtual host. It is also difficult to disable a particular vhost. Using the split configuration reduces likelyhood of error and makes things like disabling, enabling, or adding vhosts relatively trivial. Having a standard split configuration makes it easier for administrators moving from one system to another.

    Retaining the original http.conf file as an empty included file accomplishes two things:

    • It indicates that the server is there and the configuration has been split/moved elsewhere.
    • Allows tools which do their configuration by adding to the http.conf file to configure themselves.
    • 0