Greg Stein wrote:
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
As part of this, it could be useful to
generate a RunningConfig.cnf file as part httpd startup, which
would be a merged config file with comments indicating which file set the
option (and possibly which options have taken defaults).
This would hopefully reduce problems with
conflicting
On 6-Apr-05, at 11:43 AM, Phil Lello wrote:
As part of this, it could be useful to generate a RunningConfig.cnf
file as part httpd startup, which would be a merged config file with
comments indicating which file set the option (and possibly which
options have taken defaults).
You can get easily
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:01:34PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
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
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:01:34 -0700, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Admittedly, there are times when having multiple conf files
and conf directories makes things much easier. Other
time, more difficult. But that is a SysAdmin decision.
We should keep with one-true config file for defaults.
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.
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,
What makes matters worse is that the update-apache2-script that apache2
comes with in Debian doesn't seem to work in any situation I've tried
it in (or maybe I'm just not using it right), rendering the entire
configuration confusing for no substantial reason.
That being said, the idea behind the
+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.
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, April 03, 2005 1:33:06 AM
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.
--On Saturday, April 2, 2005 2:58 PM -0500 Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you have suggestions for the implementation, speak up or just commit
away on the branch.
Thanks for taking this on.
Here are some things I would like to see done on this branch. Feel free
to jump in.
1. Fix make
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Do we really need LockFile, ScoreBoardFile?
LockFile is needed if people put ServerRoot on NFS, I guess. But
perhaps just a comment to that effect would suffice.
Do we really need PidFile? The MPMs default to:
#define DEFAULT_PIDLOG DEFAULT_REL_RUNTIMEDIR /httpd.pid
On Apr 4, 2005 1:13 PM, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Do we really need LockFile, ScoreBoardFile?
LockFile is needed if people put ServerRoot on NFS, I guess. But
perhaps just a comment to that effect would suffice.
fairly common to have two web server
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
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
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 02:58:26PM -0500, Joshua Slive wrote:
Please take a look at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/simple-conf/docs/conf/
This is my long-threatened project to massively simplify the basic
httpd.conf by splitting a bunch of stuff out into smaller files
Please take a look at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/simple-conf/docs/conf/
This is my long-threatened project to massively simplify the basic
httpd.conf by splitting a bunch of stuff out into smaller files in the
extra/ directory that are not included by default. I
18 matches
Mail list logo
