Jyri Virkki wrote: > Sriram Natarajan wrote: > >> 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' . >> > > I still don't (yet, perhaps) see why is it compelling to support two > separate directories for editable conf files (and you almost seem to > be arguing against it as well ;-). > > Why are some editable conf files more equal than others, such that > some are in /etc/apache2/extra/ and some in /etc/apache2/conf.d/? > > Why not a single directory (whichever name) containing precisely the > [sub]set of conf files which this project decides to support out of the box? > > Very true. Couldn't agree more. Please note that the first file layout proposal as laid out here http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=36272&tstart=0
does mention only 'conf.d' -> a place holder for configuration files that we think we can help support it even in the long run. 'extra' is a directory with collection of apache configuration file samples that gets shipped within apache's build system. If we are going to trim the sample location, I am hoping that we do this under 'conf.d' -> to keep us consistent with other httpd distributors. thanks sriram
