Michael Peterson wrote on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:24:09 -0500:
> I did not guess.
When you replied the first time, you *did* guess. It is quite obvious that
you do not need to remove what you suggested.
> I have been working with Apache for over 8 years
I can top that easily. So, what?
> After su
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Michael Peterson wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:03:13 -0500 (CDT):
I run a Virtual Host entry without a ServerName directive and have been
through several releases of CentOS and Apache and all works fine for me.
You can do that, it depends on your configuration. A sta
Michael Peterson wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:03:13 -0500 (CDT):
> I run a Virtual Host entry without a ServerName directive and have been
> through several releases of CentOS and Apache and all works fine for me.
You can do that, it depends on your configuration. A standard name-based
virtual ho
Michael Peterson a écrit :
>> Michael Peterson wrote on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:09:54 -0500:
>>
>>
>>> You need to remove the :80 in the VirtualHost declarations that contains
>>> Servername entries.
>>>
No, the ':80' is ok.
>> No, that's perfectly ok and recommended. His problem was that
> Michael Peterson wrote on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:09:54 -0500:
>
>> You need to remove the :80 in the VirtualHost declarations that contains
>> Servername entries.
>
> No, that's perfectly ok and recommended. His problem was that he was using
> a virtual host without a ServerName directive.
>
> Kai
>
Michael Peterson wrote on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:09:54 -0500:
> You need to remove the :80 in the VirtualHost declarations that contains
> Servername entries.
No, that's perfectly ok and recommended. His problem was that he was using
a virtual host without a ServerName directive.
Kai
--
Kai Sch
Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:14:10 + (UTC):
> I am therefore
> left with the need to remove the VirtualHost that
> has no ServerName. I can access the site with an
> IP address, which, I think, this is meant to prevent.
I still don't see the purpose of that virtual host.
Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:28:39 + (UTC):
> In other words, ServerName alone fails to distinguish two
> named virtual hosts.
Oh, it sure does. If it is present in both - which it isn't in your
config.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive
what's the purpose of that whole confusing configuration? If you want to
use IP-based virtualhosts *any* of them needs a servername. And why do you
enclose the Location statement in a virtualhost? Why don't you simply
specify the real location? And I would use to make it look
less like XML.
>
Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
> On: Centos 5.2, with httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_1.centos.3
>
> I tried to bring up a web server using an
> httpd.con that runs well
>
> On the Centos version, I cannot successfully:
>run a NameVirtualHost;
>execute a CGI.
>
> I can bring up a simple page if I avoid
On: Centos 5.2, with httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_1.centos.3
I tried to bring up a web server using an
httpd.con that runs well
on: Fedora 8, with httpd-2.2.8-1.fc8
as well as several earlier versions, going
back to Fedora 4.
On the Centos version, I cannot successfully:
run a NameVirtualHost;
exec
11 matches
Mail list logo
