Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 21962 invoked by uid 6000); 2 Dec 1998 03:05:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 21955 invoked from network); 2 Dec 1998 03:05:03 -0000 Received: from i.meepzor.com (HELO Mail.MeepZor.Com) (root@204.146.167.214) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 2 Dec 1998 03:05:03 -0000 Received: from Golux.Com (ss08.nc.us.ibm.com [32.97.136.238]) by Mail.MeepZor.Com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA30792; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:59:05 -0500 Message-ID: <3664AEDC.8BFF968@Golux.Com> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 22:07:08 -0500 From: Rodent of Unusual Size Organization: The Apache Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Configuration (4/4): TARGET name References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Randy Terbush wrote: > > 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. Absolutely. > 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. Mmm, I somewhat agree. I would rather like to ease this transition; say, release 1.3.4 with the One True Config and the stubs, and for 1.3.5 (even if this is all that goes into that release) remove the use-them-if-they're-there magic-ness of srm & access and don't even supply the stubs. I'd like the 1TC change to go out first and separate, in other words. > 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. If we had done this for 1.3.0 I think I'd have agreed. But for a 1.3.[^0] release I'd prefer to phase it in. Just FWIW. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar Apache Group member "Apache Server for Dummies"