Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > Stop handwaving. No-one is suggesting overwriting httpd.conf.
>
> Re-read that paragraph. In no place did I say we were. I said we were
> re-installing the default config files on an upgrade
Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I took 'default config files' to
mean httpd
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > You are working around a problem in your script in the Apache
> > > upgrade step.
> >
> > no sir. It would have been a piece of cake to change my perl script
> to
> > insure
> > that conf/ has enough stuff so the server can start. But I couldn't
> take
> > the
> > easy
> > I would be in favor of never installing them on an upgrade. They
are
> > useless on a production machine that already has a configuration.
They
> > are meant as DEFAULT values to help people get up and running.
>
> And they also provide examples of how things are done. When those
> things c
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> That is the difference between developers and users. I want the -std
> files on my DEVELOPER machines, and I have tricks to get them. I don't
> want them anywhere near my PRODUCTION machines, because they get in the
> way.
You are hardly a typical user. You shouldn't thi
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> Why is that a good thing?
Because it's consistent with how it works on ten million
existing servers? :-)
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp
Sander Striker wrote:
> Exactly, why should users that keep their config dir clean have to pay when
> some users don't want to be troubled with getting httpd-std.conf from elsewhere
> and need it installed at their fingertips?
Getting the defaults from elsewhere doesn't bother me if the dir has
>Secondly consider that you have installed 2.0.35 and are upgrading to 2.0.40.
>If ${sysconfdir}/[examples/]httpd-std.conf would be overwritten, you would
>have
>no chance to compare the old httpd-std.conf with the new httpd-std.conf
>anymore.
>I consider that diff more usefull than the diff be
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: 23 July 2002 19:30
[...]
> I'm curious about how other people feel about this, so I started a
> vote in STATUS.
* httpd-std.conf and friends
a) httpd-std.conf should be tailored by install (from sr
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:03:03AM -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
> "johannes m. richter" wrote:
> >
> > > If you read this whole thread, you'll see that I'm not the only one
> > > who likes having current -std.conf files available. They worked this
> > > way for ages. I don't recall seeing any compla
Hi,
Although I'm not one of the "Developers", I've been following the list for a
couple of weeks, waiting for release notifications so I can compile the PS2
binaries.
However, I'd just like to give my "users" view of this issue about
having -std.conf files placed in conf/ when a user upgrades. I
"Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:trawick@rdu88-250-
> > > Nor do I want spurious
> -std
> > > files copying in there to confuse matters.
> >
> > Some of us want the -std files though. From time to time I (and
On Tuesday 23 July 2002 18.58, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:trawick@rdu88-250-
[snip]
> I would be in favor of never installing them on an upgrade. They are
> useless on a production machine that already has a configuration. They
> are meant as DEFAULT values to help p
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:trawick@rdu88-250-
> > Nor do I want spurious
-std
> > files copying in there to confuse matters.
>
> Some of us want the -std files though. From time to time I (and
That is the difference between developers and users.
James Tait <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FWIW... I, as a user, agree wholeheartedly with this approach. If
> I've taken the time out to write web pages then I don't want them
> clobbered when I upgrade Apache. In the same way, if I've taken the
> time out to configure Apache the way I want it,
"johannes m. richter" wrote:
>
> >If you read this whole thread, you'll see that I'm not the only one who likes
> >having current -std.conf files available. They worked this way for ages. I
> >don't recall seeing any complaints about this behavior until yesterday.
>
> why not copy them somewhe
> From: gregames [mailto:gregames] On Behalf Of Greg Ames
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > You are working around a problem in your script in the Apache
> > upgrade step.
>
> no sir. It would have been a piece of cake to change my perl script
to
> insure
> that conf/ has enough stuff so the server
James Tait wrote:
> Why risk confusing people by adding more clutter to an already-working directory?
If you look at the earlier posts in this thread, you'll see that my main
objective in making this change was to fix a non-functional conf/ directory (no
mime.types). I can't imagine who would
>If you read this whole thread, you'll see that I'm not the only one who likes
>having current -std.conf files available. They worked this way for ages. I
>don't recall seeing any complaints about this behavior until yesterday.
why not copy them somewhere in the documentation directory? People
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> You are working around a problem in your script in the Apache
> upgrade step.
no sir. It would have been a piece of cake to change my perl script to insure
that conf/ has enough stuff so the server can start. But I couldn't take the
easy way out with a clear conscience
FWIW... I, as a user, agree wholeheartedly with this approach. If I've
taken the time out to write web pages then I don't want them clobbered when
I upgrade Apache. In the same way, if I've taken the time out to configure
Apache the way I want it, I don't want that configuration clobbered whe
> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 July 2002 20:06
>>> The situation that you are trying to protect against is most likely
>>> not standard. My question, is why isn't your automation just copying
>>> the whole conf/ directory?
>>
>> Keep in mind that I'm like the proverbia
Greg Ames wrote:
>
> uhhh, that clobbers httpd.conf, and they'd tar and feather us for sure. But if
> we leave out that piece, it's close to what's happening now:
I didn't mean overwrite it, I shoulda said 'copy if it doesn't exist'. My bad.
>
> . make a conf/ directory if it doesn't alrea
> From: gregames [mailto:gregames] On Behalf Of Greg Ames
>
> David Shane Holden wrote:
>
> > I agree with Ryan wholeheartedly here.
> >
> > Here's an idea...
> > If conf/ exist, copy httpd.conf, magic, and mime.types (These are
basic
> > files that all conf/ should have, right?). If conf/ does
David Shane Holden wrote:
> I agree with Ryan wholeheartedly here.
>
> Here's an idea...
> If conf/ exist, copy httpd.conf, magic, and mime.types (These are basic
> files that all conf/ should have, right?). If conf/ does not exist, copy
> everything.
uhhh, that clobbers httpd.conf, and they'd
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> I don't, but I am not going to argue anymore. I will simply say that
> the way things work now, I am going to have a bunch of useless files
> sitting in the conf/ directory of all of my production machines, because
> every time I upgrade Apache, I will get all of the fi
> > The situation that you are trying to protect against is most likely
not
> > standard. My question, is why isn't your automation just copying
the
> > whole conf/ directory?
>
> Keep in mind that I'm like the proverbial canary in the coal mine. If
the
> canary suddenly keels over when enteri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If we had a customized mime.types, I wouldn't want it to get clobbered. I think
> > the old code would have done that.
>
> The old code was blowing away everything in the directory on my
> machine.
no, I don't think it was blowing away existing conf/httpd.conf, c
> I guess I wasn't clear. I have automation that creates a new conf/, then copies
> in httpd.conf* from the production conf/ with appropriate edits. So my conf/
> directory exists, but doesn't contain mime.types (or several other files which
> aren't relevant on daedalus).
>
> make install run
At 05:31 AM 7/18/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Previously, foo-std.conf would always be copied but foo.conf wouldn't
>be overlaid. That was a nice feature.
[on win32, we are using .default.conf at the moment. That said...]
the current win32 be
Dale Ghent wrote:
> Apache configuration files can be pretty much considered user-land stuff
> that shouldnt be touched by 'make install'
definately.
> There are so many ways for an admin to organize his/her apache
> configuration files, from a flat httpd.conf to having it broken out into
> ma
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Greg Ames wrote:
| I guess I wasn't clear. I have automation that creates a new conf/,
| then copies in httpd.conf* from the production conf/ with appropriate
| edits. So my conf/ directory exists, but doesn't contain mime.types (or
| several other files which aren't releva
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>
> At 08:33 PM 7/17/2002, Greg Ames wrote:
> >...since Wednesday, 17-Jul-2002 18:49:31 PDT . Things look fine now, but we
> >took about a 3 1/2 minute site outage because of:
> >
> >[Wed Jul 17 18:47:20 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directory: could not
> >open
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 08:33 PM 7/17/2002, Greg Ames wrote:
> >...since Wednesday, 17-Jul-2002 18:49:31 PDT . Things look fine now, but we
> >took about a 3 1/2 minute site outage because of:
> >
> >[Wed Jul 17 18:47:20 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directory:
* William A. Rowe, Jr. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> At 08:33 PM 7/17/2002, Greg Ames wrote:
> >...since Wednesday, 17-Jul-2002 18:49:31 PDT . Things look fine now, but
> >we
> >took about a 3 1/2 minute site outage because of:
> >
> >[Wed Jul 17 18:47:20 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directo
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 01:05:19AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 09:37:55PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > That doesn't mean we couldn't overlay none the less... and save their
> > existing files in .bak.# files.
>
> I like that much better. +1
Wait, that doesn't
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 09:37:55PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> That doesn't mean we couldn't overlay none the less... and save their
> existing files in .bak.# files.
I like that much better. +1
-aaron
At 08:33 PM 7/17/2002, Greg Ames wrote:
>...since Wednesday, 17-Jul-2002 18:49:31 PDT . Things look fine now, but we
>took about a 3 1/2 minute site outage because of:
>
>[Wed Jul 17 18:47:20 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directory: could not
>open mime types config file /usr/local/apache/conf
...since Wednesday, 17-Jul-2002 18:49:31 PDT . Things look fine now, but we
took about a 3 1/2 minute site outage because of:
[Wed Jul 17 18:47:20 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directory: could not
open mime types config file /usr/local/apache/conf/mime.types.
Configuration Failed
That's t
38 matches
Mail list logo
