James A Sutherland wrote: > > If this is a requirement, taking a "snapshot" of the pages would do, > then include the source in a tarball. Perhaps better to include a > link to a proper installation of the docs, though.
Putting a burden on the process of packaging the software for distribution, solely so some files can be renamed. For this reason and the effect on the repository, -1. > > No. Lots of people DO NOT want SSIs enabled, and certainly not > > by default. > > Hrm... Personally, I'd provide a link to thttpd for people wanting > a minimal cutdown server which does nothing other than serving > files :-) Who said anything about a minimal server? Some people just don't want to enable SSIs. The documentation must be readable by the server with which it ships, in its barest form. > I wouldn't rate SSI (with NoExec) as "far-reaching"; it seems > pretty basic from here. I would almost consider not enabling it > to be a bug in the default httpd.conf... At the very least, it > should be more obvious (and simpler) to enable. This is a discussion that has been held several times over the years on the development list, and each time the result has been the same. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/> Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/> "Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/> "Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
