Multiple conf files?

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Before I point out that the current betas have all previously been
vetoed on the 2.1 release chain - can anyone point me at the conclusion
of the vote to split the httpd.conf into conf'lets?

Several folks argued strongly against multiple conf files on list,
pointing out that's where we came from (srm.conf/access.conf) and
what we, once upon a time, had retreated from.

Bill

Re: Multiple conf files?

[Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>]

On Friday 02 September 2005 08:12, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Before I point out that the current betas have all previously been
> vetoed on the 2.1 release chain - can anyone point me at the conclusion
> of the vote to split the httpd.conf into conf'lets?

Was there a vote?  ISTR discussing a muchly-stripped-down httpd.conf,
and a bunch of illustrative demo/examples, which is something I could
live with.  But adding gratuitous complexity to the default we ship would
be a -1 if that were really the proposal.


-- 
Nick Kew

Re: Multiple conf files?

[Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Before I point out that the current betas have all previously been
> vetoed on the 2.1 release chain - can anyone point me at the conclusion
> of the vote to split the httpd.conf into conf'lets?
> 
> Several folks argued strongly against multiple conf files on list,
> pointing out that's where we came from (srm.conf/access.conf) and
> what we, once upon a time, had retreated from.

First, you are working from a faulty assumption.  We do not have 
multiple conf files in 2.1.  We have a single, short and simple config 
file, and a directory with a bunch of examples for more complex 
configurations.

It was discussed extensively, including, for example, the thread 
starting here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200504.mbox/%3cPine.WNT.4.61.0504021433310.944@bronfman504%3e

I did not see any objections to this structure after it was clearly 
explained and understood, and certainly no vetos.

If people are concerned (as I am) with new users getting hit by 
death-from-a-thousand-config-files, then I wouldn't at all object to 
replacing the commented-out Include's at the bottom with a simple 
comment telling people to copy-paste the example configs in at that point.

Joshua.