Re: [users@httpd] Name Virtual Host Weirdness

2012-01-13 Thread Clay Porter
Thanks for the info. I will try what you suggested. I'm pretty new to all of this, so I hope you don't mind a n00b question. What do you mean by a defunct vhost? Could I trouble you for an example? Thanks again. Clay On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Steve Swift swi...@swiftys.org.uk wrote:

Re: [users@httpd] Name Virtual Host Weirdness

2012-01-13 Thread Tom Evans
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Clay Porter clay.por...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the info.  I will try what you suggested. I'm pretty new to all of this, so I hope you don't mind a n00b question.  What do you mean by a defunct vhost?  Could I trouble you for an example? Thanks again.

Re: [users@httpd] Name Virtual Host Weirdness

2012-01-13 Thread Steve Swift
One more comment on the defunct vhost setup. You have to be very careful if you decide to define each of your virtual hosts in their own distinct definition file, and include them all with a wildcard Include directive, such as Include vhost.* I think that the order that the files are included is

[users@httpd] Name Virtual Host Weirdness

2012-01-12 Thread Clay Porter
All, I have two virtual hosts set up that look like the following (I've tried to only include the information pertaining to the problem, i,e, I've removed the actual rewrite rules, etc): Listen *:38215 NameVirtualHost *:38215 VirtualHost *:38215 DocumentRoot /www/sitea ServerName

Re: [users@httpd] Name Virtual Host Weirdness

2012-01-12 Thread Steve Swift
It all looks correct to me. Can you exchange the order of the VirtualHost definitions? The first Virtualhost defined is the one that gets used if anything goes wrong with allocating a request to a particular vhost, so you often end up thinking you are using the first Vhost when in fact you are