On Wednesday 31 October 2001 08:15 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > I've committed Ralf's patch to ssl-std.conf, since we had 6 of 9 in favor > of a seperated config for ssl. > > Y'r all welcome to jump in here, now that we have a good starting point. > Consistify, clarify, etc. I see already that some things such as the > mime types could just as simply go into mime.types, types are always > useful regardless of the current config. > > I thought we decided not to rely on -D SSL anymore, or am I mistaken? > If that 'feature' is needed (and they don't know how to uncomment the > LoadModule directive, or they are a static build) I suppose we could > introduce the obverse, -D NOSSL, to let folks hobble along while they > are fixing their config. > > Ralf, thank you muchly, for the .conf, and the docs clarification! Your > team's efforts (and all the predecessors before you - Ben et al;) are very > much appreciated.
Why would we want to remove -DSSL? It makes sense to me to force people to enable SSL specially. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
