First, sorry if I'm in the slightly wrong issue here. The most recent comment before mine fits our situation perfectly and wasn't old, so I think it's an acceptable place for this discussion.
> So we have a regression when `apache2ctl graceful` is called directly, which I think it's still a common thing
I agreed.
'common thing' is more than true: apachectl resp. apache2ctl were here before init systems started to support 'reload', and propably before Debian's 'service' wrapper around several supported init systems.
Hence
1. long-term admins are almost hard-wired to call apache2ctl directly
2. many many scripts do so
3. many many how-to guides, readmes, ..., do so too
IMO the 'restart' and 'graceful' branch in apache2ctl should be split up.
But I haven't investiagtes why graceful -> restart might make sense in the first place. At all.
First, sorry if I'm in the slightly wrong issue here. The most recent comment before mine fits our situation perfectly and wasn't old, so I think it's an acceptable place for this discussion.
> So we have a regression when `apache2ctl graceful` is called directly, which I think it's still a common thing
I agreed.
'common thing' is more than true: apachectl resp. apache2ctl were here before init systems started to support 'reload', and propably before Debian's 'service' wrapper around several supported init systems.
Hence
1. long-term admins are almost hard-wired to call apache2ctl directly
2. many many scripts do so
3. many many how-to guides, readmes, ..., do so too
IMO the 'restart' and 'graceful' branch in apache2ctl should be split up.
But I haven't investiagtes why graceful -> restart might make sense in the first place. At all.