Your message dated Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:16:37 +0000 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#231452: Suggestion: Relative Includes in apache2.conf, and notes on Including linked-to directories has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -------------------------------------- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Feb 2004 17:58:14 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 06 09:58:14 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from h55n2fls304o851.telia.com (gloomy.localdomain.local) [81.224.231.55] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1ApAF4-0002dQ-00; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:58:14 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by gloomy.localdomain.local with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ApAEY-00039T-00 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:57:42 +0100 Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:57:42 +0100 (CET) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Wiberg?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Suggestion: Relative Includes in apache2.conf, and notes on Including linked-to directories Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_01 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_01 X-Spam-Level: Package: apache2-common Version: 2.0.48-7 Severity: wishlist Just something that I thought about when reviewing the apache2.conf file: Why not use relative paths for the Include directives, as they are relative to the server root? # Include module configuration: Include /etc/apache2/mods-enabled/*.load Include /etc/apache2/mods-enabled/*.conf =2E..could be written: # Include module configuration: Include mods-enabled/*.load Include mods-enabled/*.conf And: # Include ports listing Include /etc/apache2/ports.conf # Include generic snippets of statements Include /etc/apache2/conf.d =2E..could be written: # Include ports listing Include ports.conf # Include generic snippets of statements Include conf.d Finally: # Include the virtual host configurations: Include /etc/apache2/sites-enabled =2E..could be written: # Include the virtual host configurations: Include sites-enabled My experience is that it is good to use relative paths where possible. Although for clarity, absolute paths may be better. Furthermore, there's always the danger of the allowance of relative paths disappearing in some future version. This for instance happened to the AuthDigestFile and AuthDigestGroupFile directives for mod_digest when I switched from Apache 2.0.48/Win32 to 2.0.48-5 (and up) on Debian, forcing me to use absolute paths for digest authentication files. Anyway, I thought it would be worth a thought. Another interesting thing about Includes that could be worth noticing is that if you try to include a directory, which actually is a symlink to a directory, Apache will complain instead of including all files in the (linked-to) directory. Adding a slash after the directory (link) name takes care of it, and includes all files in the (linked-to) directory. Best regards, Bj=F6rn -- Bj=F6rn Wiberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Homepage: http://bwiberg.dyndns.org/ --------------------------------------- Received: (at 231452-done) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Feb 2004 18:16:39 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 06 10:16:38 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mirror.positive-internet.com [80.87.128.67] (postfix) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1ApAWs-0002xO-00; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:16:38 -0800 Received: by mirror.positive-internet.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 4D9304354C; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:16:37 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:16:37 +0000 From: Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Wiberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#231452: Suggestion: Relative Includes in apache2.conf, and notes on Including linked-to directories Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.0-1-686 (i686) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_01 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_01 X-Spam-Level: * Bj?rn Wiberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > Package: apache2-common > Version: 2.0.48-7 > Severity: wishlist > > Just something that I thought about when reviewing the apache2.conf file: > > Why not use relative paths for the Include directives, as they are > relative to the server root? Thanks but no way. Relative paths for system wide configuration are in my experience never a good thing. Absolute paths make it 100% clear exactly where an install is looking for things. This saves on debug time and *aids* clarity. -Thom