Hi Let me try to explain my reasoning for campaigning on this 'conf.d' directory. The reasoning is two fold
1. Keep the 'extras' (a collection of task specific configuration examples that is shipped with Apache 2.2 build systems) separate from 'conf.d' where in 'conf.d' can ideally, in the long run, end up as configurations supported by Sun . Now, if should we bundle 'extras' (collection of these sample configuration files that comes with Apache 2.2 build systems) or not is not my call. My only wish is - we bundle a carefully selected task specific configuration files under 'conf.d' . 2. We have no control over what files gets shipped over within 'extras' as these are the collection of sample configuration files that comes along with Apache 2.2 build system. So, it is very possible that Apache 2.4 has a totally different configuration example set giving the Web Stack project maintainer a nightmare in providing some form of backward compatibility. This is most likely the reason, why other popular OS vendor who re distribute Apache HTTPD don't bundle the 'extras' directory as is. We should avoid bundling too many configurations within 'conf.d' thereby turning it into a kitchen sink . This would only give us maintenance nightmare in the longer run. Besides, current Apache HTTP 2.x configuration file layout in the SXDE builds look like (given below) and under all of these sub directories there are a bunch of various task specific configuration files. /etc/apache2/original /etc/apache2/original/extra /etc/apache2/extra I am hoping that customers might expect a little bit more refinement and consistency among standard Apache 2 binary (re)distributors rather than shipping all the standard configuration files that comes within Apache 2.x build system. Hope this clarifies sriram Jyri Virkki wrote: > Sriram Natarajan wrote: > >>> So, are you reviving the proposal of adding a and/or renaming to conf.d? >>> >> >> For now, if we can add conf.d that would be a good start. In the long >> run, I would like to see 'extra' go away. >> > > So if both are there, /etc/apache2/extra/ contains *.conf files that > are included in the distribution and /etc/apache2/conf.d/ ships empty > but is documented as a place for additional *.conf files added by the user? > > Are these two classes of conf files so different that they require > different locations? > > Could you expand on the reasoning of the proposal? > > I agree conf.d is more common. AFAIK the only reason against it is > that it's not what was there before - but that is a powerful > argument. We need a compelling argument to drive change. If conf.d is > universal except for Solaris, let's document that. (I see it's conf.d > on my debian server, but I haven't surveyed all other distros.) > > > >
