I'm for the patch, but I'm the guy that committed this for 1.3.
This makes admin a lot simpler. I want UserDir, I enable the module
and leave the default config. I don't, I comment out the module. It's
kinda the point of IfModule, no?
It also means you can use apxs's ability to enable/disable a module
without crapping out the server.
-wsv
On Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 02:06 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Tim Wilde wrote:
>
>> I'm reposting the attached patch yet again, which adds various
>> <IfModule>
>> sections to the default httpd.conf to allow proper function without
>> changes to httpd.conf if various modules aren't enabled. Sent this
>> twice
>> within the last two months now without any response. Makes me wonder
>> if
>> anyone cares that the default config file just plain doesn't work in
>> many
>> configurations. This would be an ideal and simple patch to put into
>> 2.0.40. Patch applies cleanly to docs/conf/httpd-std.conf.in from the
>> 2.0.39 release.
>
> Personally, I have mixed feelings about this patch, which is why I
> haven't
> committed it myself. Yes, it does make the default config file more
> generally useful with different configurations. But it also makes the
> default config file less of a good example. The <IfModule> wrappers
> have
> a real tendency to confuse people, because they get the idea that you
> MUST
> place your directives inside them.
>
> So, for example, I see people asking
> "Why does this fail silently with no errors?
> <IfModule mod_rewrite.c>
> RewriteEngine On
> RewriteRule / /elsewhere
> </IfModule>"
> The answer is that they don't have mod_rewrite. If they had left out
> the
> <IfModule> lines, they would have gotten a useful error message. With
> them included, they are just confused.
>
> The default config file works with the default install. If you modify
> the
> default install, you also need to modify the default config. I'm
> comfortable with that. If you change the installed modules without
> modifying the default config files, you are asking for confusion.
>
> Others may have other opinions, and I have no intention of vetoing this
> patch.
>
> Joshua.
