From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Jul 22 18:19:39 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA1F9A8ADE for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:19:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0139B1DD6 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:19:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id t6MIJcuR044804 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:19:38 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 198705] [new port] www/httpd: OpenBSD http daemon Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:19:39 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: portmaster@bsdforge.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:19:39 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198705 --- Comment #7 from Chris Hutchinson --- (In reply to jsmith from comment #6) > 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. Ahhh. I think I perhaps missed your earlier point(s). For the record; I am not suggesting that you change the name of the port itself. But rather, that you might want to consider changing the name of the _executable_. What you say is _quite_ true. The name of the port indeed _should_ reflect it's intended use, and origin. I completely agree. :) I hope my intention is now more clear. :) --Chris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.