That being said, the idea behind the Debian configuration makes things like adding vhosts easy - put them in a file, drop them into sites-enabled, and restart. Definitely easier than adding them to the httpd.conf file by hand (and then having to re-order them when you want one to be the default). One vhost (or set of relevant vhosts) per file, and you can swap in/out at will.
Personally, I'm inclined to think this would be useful to new users. It's easier for newbies to worry about one 10-line file at a time, instead of a monolithic 1000-line file (for reference, my httpd.conf from apache1 in Debian is now at 1091 lines, while my apache2.conf is at 394), and for sysadmins, they don't have to worry about where which directive is and whether or not there's an important LoadModule or SetEnvIf somewhere between two unrelated vhosts.
On Apr 5, 2005 4:16 PM, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:38:44AM -0400, Paul A. Houle wrote:
>
>>...
>> There are good operational reasons to split up configuration in
>> different files -- if the Apache install can encourage good practices,
>>based on the decade of experience we've had with it, that's a good thing.
>
>
> You have a complex series of sites and a deep understanding of
> configuration and sysadmin issues to keep it manageable. For somebody
> *new* to this, they need the utmost simplicity. Even a strong sysadmin
> needs something simple so they can figure out what they're working with
> and then blend that into their environment.
>
> If we shipped a setup similar to yours, most people would cry with
> frustration trying to figure out where to turn this or that knob.
You mean, like when new users encounter a default Debian Apache
installation?
/me hides from the Debian users.
--Rich
--
Dan Udey
