On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote: > * Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (chop) > > Using the Source File name seems completely non-intuitive to me.
Agreed. > I'm rather for removing the whole crap from the default config and simplifiy > as much as possible. I'd be cautious about that. The default httpd.conf contains a fair chunk of documentation that isn't available elsewhere. We need to work carefully on making sure this isn't lost. > A >30 KB default config, which nobody outside this circle here > really understands, isn't helpful - especially for beginners. I disagree. Think about a situation where you're on the learningcurve for working with a big package. A big and well-commented config file is the most useful thing available. I'm thinking of compiling kernels, and contrasting Linux (where "make menuconfig" is very nice but hides what's really happening) with FreeBSD, where keeping the "LINT" config open in another window while editing my config is the absolute best documentation I could wish. If the default is shortened, we should package a long and highly-commented file in the manner of LINT. It would be nice also to integrate the documentation in httpd.conf into the main docs as and when round tuits can be sourced. > In the same cycle we could remove the docs from the default distribution and > start distributing them officially as separate packages. (But we could > distribute a separate config snippet for the multilingual docs, which can > be included in the httpd.conf). The more translations we add, the less > applicable is it to include the whole doc tree. Hmmm, does that risk generating a higher volume of dumb-newbie questions in all the public fora? And perhaps also "apache-is-hard" articles in the press? -- Nick Kew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
