Re: IncludeOptional: feature request to be less strict

[Stefan Eissing]

> Am 06.11.2017 um 12:25 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
> 
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Joe Orton  wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Luca Toscano wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>> 
>>> in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it was asked to
>>> relax a bit how IncludeOptional works to allow a config to specify a path
>>> in IncludeOptional that might not be (yet) on the file system (without
>>> using * in the directory path).
>>> 
>>> For example, in the bugzilla task this use case is presented:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585#c6
>>> 
>>> I found the report while dealing with an apache config issue on Debian
>>> Stretch with a colleague:
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878920
>>> 
>>> I am wondering if there is the chance to review the IncludeOptional
>>> behavior or if there are solid reason not to.
>> 
>> I think having IncludeOptional do nothing if any path element is missing
>> makes more sense, I'd assumed it worked like that already. Should be
>> fine to make that change in 2.4.x too IMO.
> 
> +1
> 
> Regards,
> Yann.

+1

Re: IncludeOptional: feature request to be less strict

[Yann Ylavic]

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Joe Orton  wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Luca Toscano wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it was asked to
>> relax a bit how IncludeOptional works to allow a config to specify a path
>> in IncludeOptional that might not be (yet) on the file system (without
>> using * in the directory path).
>>
>> For example, in the bugzilla task this use case is presented:
>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585#c6
>>
>> I found the report while dealing with an apache config issue on Debian
>> Stretch with a colleague:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878920
>>
>> I am wondering if there is the chance to review the IncludeOptional
>> behavior or if there are solid reason not to.
>
> I think having IncludeOptional do nothing if any path element is missing
> makes more sense, I'd assumed it worked like that already. Should be
> fine to make that change in 2.4.x too IMO.

+1

Regards,
Yann.

Re: IncludeOptional: feature request to be less strict

[Joe Orton]

On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Luca Toscano wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it was asked to
> relax a bit how IncludeOptional works to allow a config to specify a path
> in IncludeOptional that might not be (yet) on the file system (without
> using * in the directory path).
> 
> For example, in the bugzilla task this use case is presented:
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585#c6
> 
> I found the report while dealing with an apache config issue on Debian
> Stretch with a colleague:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878920
> 
> I am wondering if there is the chance to review the IncludeOptional
> behavior or if there are solid reason not to.

I think having IncludeOptional do nothing if any path element is missing 
makes more sense, I'd assumed it worked like that already. Should be 
fine to make that change in 2.4.x too IMO.

Regards, Joe

IncludeOptional: feature request to be less strict

[Luca Toscano]

Hi everybody,

in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it was asked to
relax a bit how IncludeOptional works to allow a config to specify a path
in IncludeOptional that might not be (yet) on the file system (without
using * in the directory path).

For example, in the bugzilla task this use case is presented:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585#c6

I found the report while dealing with an apache config issue on Debian
Stretch with a colleague:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878920

I am wondering if there is the chance to review the IncludeOptional
behavior or if there are solid reason not to.

Thanks in advance!

Luca