httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Randy Terbush" <>
Subject RE: [PATCH: srm.conf and access.conf refer to httpd.conf]
Date Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:59:01 GMT
Being the perpatrator...

I personally think that docs and comments need to reflect the
default config. If you are clued enough to begin tweaking target
names, etc. then you need to have a clue as to what you are
looking for in the docs. If the docs are changed to reflect "or
target configuration file name", then I think that should be
sufficiently clear for those who use --target=.

WRT srm.conf and access.conf, I think the answer is to get rid of
them. They cause as much confusion as a changing target name IMO.
Especially the rather poorly documented fact that they are
automatically included into $(TARGET).conf.

> | That is only true in the context that nothing is
> broken right now.  If
> | nothing is broken now, then there is no reason to
> change anything to
> | result in nothing being broken.
>   There is something broken now.  You open srm.conf to
> see what the
> hell this
> file is, and it says to look at httpd.conf. But there
> is no httpd.conf.
> | The problem with the whole target stuff is that it
> removes any clearly
> | defined way to name things.  In theory, a lot of the
> docs need to be
> | changed for whatever name people decide to give to
> the *.conf files too,
> | etc.
>   Certainly the docs should make it clear that
> httpd.conf is the
> default name for
> the config file, and that it can be changed at compile time.
>   This all gets simplified when we get rid of srm.conf and
> access.conf (that's
> the end plan, right), at which point there is only one
> *.conf file.
>   If you're saying this stuff shouldn't be fixed
> because it's hard,
> I disagree. If
> you're saying the $(TARGET) should never have
> happened, then it's kinda
> late for that now.
>   I personally thought it was fine for $(TARGET) to
> only change the
> name of the
> binary and not fooctl and foo.conf and so on. The goal
> of being able
> to compile
> multiple apaches with different TARGETs is
> interesting, but kinda
> ambitious and
> I think it's more interesting to be able to manage
> multiple configs
> without
> rebuilding apache. I didn't realize it was going to be so
> general-purpose, but
> it works for me either way, so long as we fix all
> these little things.
> 	-Fred

View raw message