"Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:trawick@rdu88-250- > > > Nor do I want spurious > -std > > > files copying in there to confuse matters. > > > > Some of us want the -std files though. From time to time I (and > > That is the difference between developers and users. I want the -std > files on my DEVELOPER machines, and I have tricks to get them. I don't > want them anywhere near my PRODUCTION machines, because they get in the > way.
not a valid description of how I use -std files... > > I don't think anybody would be in favor of not providing > > httpd-std.conf; perhaps the issue is just where to put it when the > > user does an install (from binbuild or from make install it should > > work the same). > > I would be in favor of never installing them on an upgrade. They are > useless on a production machine that already has a configuration. They > are meant as DEFAULT values to help people get up and running. I'm curious about how other people feel about this, so I started a vote in STATUS. IMHO they *are* useful on a production machine. The vast majority of the Apache conf files I see, mine or from other users, started with the default configuration file and could benefit by occasional comparison with the current default. > Is there ANY other software package anywhere that actually re-installs > the default configuration files on an upgrade????? I'm not too worried about what the other software packages do, though I have no problem thinking of other examples (RedHat, which likes to clobber what you already have with their idea of what the file should be; some of the OS/390 products, which have libraries of samples which are updated to reflect current-best-practices when the product is updated). -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
