On 19 November 2011 18:25, Dmitriy Sintsov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19.11.2011 20:23, Olivier Beaton wrote: > > And it should be noted that all you rename in debian-apache are softlinks > > in the mods-enabled and sites-enabled directories. You would keep > regular > > non-prefixed filenames in mods-available and sites-available. Using this > > method you could also allow some of your users to own the files > themselves > > (although this is a security risk, you may want to install a panel if you > > have many users). > > > > If you don't need to micromanage the load order of a module, debian > > provides some useful commands for enabling and disabling mods and sites. > > > > a2enmod a2dismod, > > a2ensite a2dissite. > > > > They merely take the name of the module / vhost in -available directories > > and it creates or removes the site without having to comment out large > > chunks of files. And by using these soft links you can keep the > > configuration for the vhost while still removing it, without having to > move > > it or rename it. It's convenient. > > > > > From what I understand all this isn't great with puppet though, and > many of > > those users (like wmf) just flatten the whole thing into a single > > configuration file, which is your prerogative. > > > > > If one wants to have their virtual hosts in separate small files, there > is much better setup than Debian / Ubuntu offers: > 1. Create separate small virtual hosts files as usual. > 2. Include them line by line in main httpd.conf file. > 3. Change of virtual hosts order is a simple line cut / paste in > httpd.conf file. Enabling / disabling one virtual host is just a # > character in the start of the line. > 4. No symlinks, no silly numeric prefixes. > 5. The utility that manages these one line includes in httpd.conf can be > developed as well. > 6. Single httpd.conf file read/write is atomic. > 7. There is no guarantee that every FS will list the filenames in dir in > ascending literal order. Although modern do, of course. > etc. > Dmitriy > "Better" here is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The system you've just described is virtually semantically identical to the Debian/Ubuntu setup: you have a load of small vhost files, create a list of them sorted however you want, and get apache to load them all in order. Having the list as symlinks is easier and safer to script, as the corresponding OS filesystem functions are very well defined, but ordering the list is a little more difficult. If you put the list in httpd.conf as a list of includes you are dependent on having a safe and effective system for editing it via script, which is substantially harder to develop; but the ordering is a little more elegant. Personally I'd say that the list-of-includes method was the "ugly option" "reminding me of ancient programming languages" and the symlink method was the "better setup", but there's no cast-iron reason why it should be so; it's basically a personal preference. It's the sort of distinction you'd discuss over a beer or ten, not one to discuss with the expectation of a meaningful outcome. --HM _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
