Tim: >>>> Apache is "httpd" for some stupid reason. Tony Nelson: >>> Trademark guidelines are not "stupid". Blind subservience might well be. It's the name of the RPM file, not the damn program. Rahul Sundaram: > Maybe. This decision was made long before Apache grew into anything > beyond just a web server and we had any real alternatives to it. If you > can suggest a better name feel free to in the development list. > > It is just noise here. 'twas just a comment about the problems in grepping output from yum, that's it's not going to work for some situations, hence one more reason why having yum doing some user-friendly searching might well be a good idea. Though the point still stands, we could have sendmail.org insisting the sendmail RPM is called smtp.rpm, and so on for the rest of them. A distro as big as the Red Hat ones (this predates Fedora, if I recall correctly), should have told Apache that the package for our distro will be named in a user-friendly, and practical, manner. What would you do when two, or more, package suppliers insisted that their package have such a generic name, and you wanted both of them to be included in the distro? BIND's was another one of the RPM-name-gotchas. With *named* and *bind* packages. -- (This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
