On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:49:53AM -0700, Jyri Virkki wrote: > I definitely don't like the idea of both /etc/apache2/conf.d/ and > /etc/apache2/extra/. That's what I'm seeking to avoid here, it's > clutter and confusing. Let's pick one. A customer should not have to > go read man pages to figure out where to edit files. Renaming the > files under extra to *-example doesn't help that much. If I rename > extra/foo.conf-example to extra/foo.conf will it start to work? > (answer is no, but that's not obvious by looking at such a directory > structure).
Agreed. A common complaint we hear is how some dists spread the conf files all over the place and load them based on arbitrary rules (debian was quite horrible at one point). My thinking is that the closer you get to the stock setup from httpd.a.o, the more examples will work and the easier it will be for people to get help outside this specific community. The reason for going from one rather large monolithic file to having httpd.conf have: #Include extra/httpd-ssl.conf type things was to make the file smaller and less cluttered while making it very easy to pull in default conf if one wants to. This change seems to have been fairly well recieved and hasn't created as much noise as I originally thought it would. > > Currently there is /etc/apache2/original/extra/ containing as-is files > from the sources. That's the directory I was thinking about. An option > is to leave it there for that purpose or move it somewhere under > /usr/apache2. On this I could see it either way, but I slightly > prefer /usr because it contains static files that are never meant to be > changed after install. > I can see what you're saying about the example files being static and as such belonging under /usr, but nobody will ever find them if that's where you put them and then you might as well skip them entirely. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk
