Return-Path: 
 <new-httpd-return-4704-apmail-new-httpd-archive=apache.org@apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org
Received: (qmail 74038 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2000 04:38:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
list-help: <mailto:new-httpd-help@apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:new-httpd-unsubscribe@apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:new-httpd@apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org
Received: (qmail 74026 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2000 04:38:24 -0000
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@lnd.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: RE: [Patch 1.3.13-dev] httpd.conf-dist & --win
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:38:33 -0500
Message-ID: <003a01bfd103$69a54890$345985d0@corecomm.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006072117230.1282-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

> From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:18 PM
> 
> > >...
> > > One final addition to the Win32 updates, if everyone will 
> entertain 
> > > a very long entry in the .conf file for Windows only...
> > 
> > Put it into the Windows-only file then. I don't want to see 
> all that in the
> > non-Windows .conf.
> 
> I thought the goal was to have only one config file finally.  
> I don't mind
> having a big Windows only blurb in the config file, if it 
> means we only
> have one config file.

An honorable and noble goal, no doubt :-)

Realistically, I think they are still two beasts (today, in 1.3.x)
I've minimized the number of lines of diffs, and I think that may
be as good as it gets.

Can we table that change till 2.0? (and this goes for -dist-nw as
well, when that is ported)  I will begin looking in two weeks at
the 2.0 conf-dist stuff.

For 2.0, as well, can we assure that we can <IfDef WIN32>, or 
<IfDef NETWARE> or whatever?  Now that would be cool.