httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@Covalent.NET>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Configuration (4/4): TARGET name
Date Tue, 01 Dec 1998 23:45:36 GMT
Paul Sutton <paul@c2.net> writes:
> On 1 Dec 1998, Randy Terbush wrote:
> > I would argue that we need to remove a few of the pitfalls of doing it 
> > so that people that are less advanced can do it easily. It is silly
> > and messy to have separate serverroots when so many of the
> > files/directories can be shared. The fact that Apache so willingly
> > shares srm.conf and access.conf is the real problem here.
> 
> But removing the files won't stop Apache from sharing a srm.conf and
> access.conf as soon as the user creates them. That would create even more
> confusion, since they might have explicitly created a ResourceConfig
> conf/srm.conf line in one httpd.conf and suddenly find that the other
> server is reading the srm.conf file! We really have to ensure that we
> install stub srm.conf and access.conf files to stop this situation
> arising. If neccessary those stubs can contain warnings about using
> multiple servers in the same serverroot area.

I don't understand.

In cases where we are installing in an existing server layout, we
would not remove them, obviously. If they aren't there, then they
won't be read by any server. If we put them there, we are in a sense
endorsing this configuration layout, which I don't think we should
be. If I am a user which has learned not to use these files, I
certainly don't want Apache stuffing up my conf directory by putting
srm.conf, srm.conf.default, access.conf and access.conf.default in my
config directory. On the same topic, I'm getting tired of explaining
to users that these files aren't necessary and can cause
problems. Apache hasn't required /dev/null to turn this off since
1.2. Seems time to cut the cord. 

I won't rant on this much more. I can live with installing these stubs 
in there for 1 release if that is the concensus. Seems kind of
pointless though and only creates a mess. 

> Of course in the longer term I expect everybody would support removing
> completely the magically nature of srm.conf and acces.conf from the Apache
> codebase. But just removing those stub files from an installation is not
> going to achieve that, and may make things more confusing.

I'm not sure how going from 3 files to one file can lead to more
confusion. Especially if things work as expected when you fire it up.

> The real problem with multiple serverroots in one directory is the way
> that Apache's install assumes that data, configuration and programs all go
> together in the same directory area (which itself comes from the old NCSA
> idea of running the serverroot in the same directory as where the source
> was compiled). We do need to address this, but I think it needs a bit more
> consideration and minor short-term changes such as removing the stub files
> from the installation do not address the issues.

IMHO - Putting all related files for a particular service ie http,
nntp, etc. is just good administration practice. Sylinking log files
to partitions with more space makes that model work quite well
especially when different administrators have responsibilities for
different services. But then, this is getting into religion. :-)

Putting it under /usr/local/etc/httpd was the NCSA legacy which does
not make sense to me.

-Randy





Mime
View raw message