Hi, On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:23:15PM -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 14/04/14 10:45, Nathan Cutler escribió:
It has been four years since Apache 1.3 went EOL. Is it time to get rid of the '2' in, e.g., 'apache2', 'httpd2', 'apache2ctl', etc.?
The official docs at http://httpd.apache.org do not use it.
Impact on users could be minimized by including symlinks from httpd2 -> httpd, etc.
Nope, I am not changing this, unless you give me a damn good reason. it is just a distribution implementation detail and does not affect the functionality.
Nathan has given a very good reason. The upstream project documentation and all the other verndors are using a different naming schema. Therefor the waste majority of documentation covering Apache has no 2 in it. Neither do the binaries they talk about include a 2. Independent if the 2 is in the middle of the command name or at the end. If we applied this style of argumentation we still would split the distribution into series directories and organize everything to fit well onto floppy disks. Not anybody might know why we had package names like bind8 and bind9 in the past. It allowed us to ship both versions in parallel. That was highly appreciated at a time when general network access wasn't ubiquitous. Then it was a very welcome feature to have both versions on the pressed CD set. People bought this material and had been very happy to get bind verion 8 and 9. At that time, 10 years back, that was an apprciated feature to save download volume if people had network access at all. But in 2014? With Apache this is quite different today. Go back yourself and check when we had both versions on the media. IIRC it was SUSE Linux 9.0 Yes, the move suggested now should have been done ten years back already. But wait, there are more arguments. With the OBS technology in place today we're quite different positioned. There is no further need to add the major version as a suffix to a package name if we like to be able to maintain two versions of the software. All we do is to use the same naming schema in two independent projects. And the one we consider most stable we use as the development project for openSUSE Factory. Having the major verison as suffix for a shared library is a different topic. Cause here it sometimes is required to offer libfoo2 and libfoo3 at the same time. But that covered quite well with our shared library policy. The more hacks and superfluous differences from upstream we have the harder it will be for us as a project to share and participate with the general Open Source Software community. Adding a sym link to address this flaw is nothing than a quick hack/ workaround and not the real/ permanent solution. @Cristian: Nobody requested from you to push this change. This is a cleanup we as the openSUSE community at all should care about. Therefore Nathan started the discussion. Cheers, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team + SUSE Labs SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany