On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 03:04:49PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I must be misunderstanding the debate. Obviously for those that > use config.layout layouts, then they will require that their httpd.conf > file match with how things were build. Is the question then should > configure build an appropriate httpd.conf file?
Yes (as httpd-std.conf). We do not properly generate httpd.conf files for non-Apache layouts. > My own POV is that I think it's pretty bogus hardwiring such paths into > an executable. They are best done with a config file. After all, > Apache *does* require a config file. Why this stuff couldn't be best > handled at that level is beyond me. I'm not aware where these paths are hard-coded, but the configuration file when using a non-Apache layout is broken. The idea is to substitute relative values into the config file based on the layout where possible and absolute values when the layout/configuration-parameters dictate doing so. Does that sound reasonable? -- justin
