You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Lars Eilebrecht <La...@unix-ag.org> on 1998/02/06 01:24:31 UTC
[PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Hi,
IMHO it would be a good idea to add all the BrowserMatch directives
mentioned on the known_client_problems page into srm.conf-dist*.
A Patch is included (it also fixed a typo in known_client_problems.html).
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht - Rumors are that Linux is dying...
sfx@unix-ag.org - If *this* is dying it sure feels good!
http://www.si.unix-ag.org/~sfx/
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net>.
Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> wrote:
> Randy Terbush wrote:
> >
> > Agreed. I've long advocated losing this confusing mismash since
> > there is no restriction to what appears where.
>
> How about a compromise? Put everything into httpd.conf-dist,
> and change {srm,access}.conf-dist to simply say "please put
> directives into httpd.conf instead".
>
> +1 on this, +0 on losing {srm,access}.conf-dist altogether.
>
> #ken P-)}
That makes sense. Would probably prevent a lot of questions.
+1
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Randy Terbush wrote:
>
> Agreed. I've long advocated losing this confusing mismash since
> there is no restriction to what appears where.
How about a compromise? Put everything into httpd.conf-dist,
and change {srm,access}.conf-dist to simply say "please put
directives into httpd.conf instead".
+1 on this, +0 on losing {srm,access}.conf-dist altogether.
#ken P-)}
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net>.
Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk> wrote:
> Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > IMHO it would be a good idea to add all the BrowserMatch directives
> > mentioned on the known_client_problems page into srm.conf-dist*.
>
> Actually, given that we recommend a _single_ config file, why are we
> distributing three?
>
> Cheers,
>
> ben.
Agreed. I've long advocated losing this confusing mismash since
there is no restriction to what appears where.
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Ron O'Hara <ro...@pen.sentuny.com.au>.
What about a simple addition of the 'tale of 3 config files' as comments
at the start of 'httpd.conf' for the files shipped under 1.3.0. Start with
a preamble that the distribution of the next version (1.4 ?) will be
structured to take advantage of this.
This is a 'no technical change' public education approach with zero risk
for the release. In essence, shifting to a single config file in the
distribution has no direct technical advantages but is a nice long term
'purist' type of thing. The possible public confusion generated by any
change is the main weakness in the proposal to consolidate the config
files in the distribution.
Staging the change across two releases with deliberate education via
comments in the main 'httpd.conf-dist' file would help minimize the
confusion.
A similar tactic may be useful for a variety of small niggling changes. In
fact, even though 2.0 might be the next major step, creating a '1.4'
release shortly after 1.3 is out the door with a goal of just improving
the documentation, examples, and addon tools would probably be worthwhile
and could proceed as an overlapping development, in parrallel with the
creation of 2.0
Most of the output of that sub-project (documentation and add-on tools)
would migrate without difficulty to the 2.0 release and not impact it's
development.
my $0.02
regards
Ron O'Hara
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> > >
> > > Most of my servers have virtual hosts each with a different
> > > access.conf... Dunno, but putting all this into the <VirtualHost>
> > > sections in httpd.conf just bloats it and doesn't make it very
> > > perspicuous. I'm maybe not the only one who is scared by
> > > a >100k config file... ;-)
> >
> > You can still do this with Include directives, although you're
> > probably doing this with symlinked httpd.conf files, right?
> > No-one appears to be suggesting that we totally discard the
> > multiple file capability, just putting all the supplied stuff
> > into a single file.
>
> -1 unless you make it make sense at the same time. Smooshing what is
> there all into one with no changes would be.... a poor idea.
>
> I should really finish my config file rewrites.
>
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> >
> > Most of my servers have virtual hosts each with a different
> > access.conf... Dunno, but putting all this into the <VirtualHost>
> > sections in httpd.conf just bloats it and doesn't make it very
> > perspicuous. I'm maybe not the only one who is scared by
> > a >100k config file... ;-)
>
> You can still do this with Include directives, although you're
> probably doing this with symlinked httpd.conf files, right?
> No-one appears to be suggesting that we totally discard the
> multiple file capability, just putting all the supplied stuff
> into a single file.
-1 unless you make it make sense at the same time. Smooshing what is
there all into one with no changes would be.... a poor idea.
I should really finish my config file rewrites.
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>
> Most of my servers have virtual hosts each with a different
> access.conf... Dunno, but putting all this into the <VirtualHost>
> sections in httpd.conf just bloats it and doesn't make it very
> perspicuous. I'm maybe not the only one who is scared by
> a >100k config file... ;-)
You can still do this with Include directives, although you're
probably doing this with symlinked httpd.conf files, right?
No-one appears to be suggesting that we totally discard the
multiple file capability, just putting all the supplied stuff
into a single file.
#ken P-)}
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Lars Eilebrecht <La...@unix-ag.org>.
According to Ben Laurie:
> > I'm prefering to have three config files.
>
> Why?
Well, I like to separate the configuration directives, e.g.
putting every <Directory>/<Location> stuff into access.conf
and everything dealing with MIME etc. into srm.conf and all
base configuration in httpd.conf.
Most of my servers have virtual hosts each with a different
access.conf... Dunno, but putting all this into the <VirtualHost>
sections in httpd.conf just bloats it and doesn't make it very
perspicuous. I'm maybe not the only one who is scared by
a >100k config file... ;-)
On two of my servers I'm actually going one step further...
Each of the virtual hosts has a single conf file which
is included into httpd.conf via "Include". That way I make
sure that there are no site-specific directives in httpd.conf
or srm.conf and the configuration file for a site only includes the
<VirtualHost> section and all the <Directory><Location> stuff.
IMHO this is easier to maintain... one other benefit is that
I can simply copy a site-config from one server to another
and only have to add/delete the Include directive.
Well, I just wanted to note that there are maybe people out there
who like the three config file setup. :)
Just my $0.02.
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht - Swap read error. You lose your mind.
sfx@unix-ag.org
http://www.si.unix-ag.org/~sfx/
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>
> According to Ben Hyde:
>
> > > ...a _single_ config file, why are we
> > >distributing three?
> >
> > Please change it to one. Just at the point in my install guide
> > where my user's attention span starts to fade out I have to explain
> > this. - ben hyde
>
> I'm prefering to have three config files.
Why?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Lars Eilebrecht <La...@unix-ag.org>.
According to Ben Hyde:
> > ...a _single_ config file, why are we
> >distributing three?
>
> Please change it to one. Just at the point in my install guide
> where my user's attention span starts to fade out I have to explain
> this. - ben hyde
I'm prefering to have three config files.
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht - I may have my faults...
sfx@unix-ag.org - but being wrong isn't one of them.
http://www.si.unix-ag.org/~sfx/
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>.
> ...a _single_ config file, why are we
>distributing three?
Please change it to one. Just at the point in my install guide
where my user's attention span starts to fade out I have to explain
this. - ben hyde
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> IMHO it would be a good idea to add all the BrowserMatch directives
> mentioned on the known_client_problems page into srm.conf-dist*.
Actually, given that we recommend a _single_ config file, why are we
distributing three?
Cheers,
ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: [PATCH] More BrowserMatch entries for srm.conf-dist
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>.
+1.
At 01:24 AM 2/6/98 +0100, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>Hi,
>
>IMHO it would be a good idea to add all the BrowserMatch directives
>mentioned on the known_client_problems page into srm.conf-dist*.
>
>A Patch is included (it also fixed a typo in known_client_problems.html).
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
specialization is for insects brian@organic.com