Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:56:48 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 198705] [new port] www/httpd: OpenBSD http daemon Message-ID: <bug-198705-13-rwrWDCT6QT@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-198705-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-198705-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198705 --- Comment #6 from jsmith@resonatingmedia.com --- I'm not strongly in favour of one name or another, but I do wonder if shortening it so much is a good idea. I mean, let's assume a new user wants to install the OpenBSD httpd software, but they do not know if it is in the ports tree or what its name is. They go to freshports.org and start running searches. In my opinion, it seems likely they are going to search for "httpd", "openbsd" and maybe "openhttpd". Whatever name is decided on should probably be easy to find based on the above search terms. Will "obhttpd" appear in the top five search results for any of the above terms? Would "ohttpd"? I think that should be a factor in the naming choice. Sure, obhttpd is easy to type, but chances are a sysadmin will only type the name three or four times during the entire life of the server. I believe the port's name should be easy to find, perhaps more so than easy to type. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-198705-13-rwrWDCT6QT>