On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:27PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 09:37 AM 4/4/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote: > >+1 to Greg's comment, I also think that for a new users, having a bunch of > >little .conf files will be more confusing. For experienced users, they will > >split up the .conf file however they see fit anyway. So it doesn't really > >matter. > > With all due respect, if we break this into 'logical' groups, > I believe it will make it easier for the new user to learn each > group of features, one .conf fragment at a time. > > Most 'cookbooks' are organized this way, and it turns out to be > a great method of teaching.
Sorry, but I very much disagree. I think back to the old days of access.conf, httpd.conf, and srm.conf. As an administrator, I absolutely detested that layout. I could NEVER figure out which file a given configuration was in. I always had to search, then edit. We've been to the "multiple .conf world" before. It sucked. We pulled everything back into a single .conf to get the hell outta there. Small examples are fine. The default configuration should remain as a single .conf file. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
