httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r925858 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x: CHANGES STATUS docs/manual/mod/core.xml server/config.c
Date Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:44:18 GMT
On 3/27/2010 9:37 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2010, at 10:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> The gist of my objection is this illegitimate behavior;
>> Include conf/extra/*.duh
>> Include conf/extra/*/doh.conf
>> Include conf/empty/*
>> Include conf/*/whoops.conf
>> The last one (based on an existing conf/empty directive) fails,
>> alerting the admin
>> to the fact that they made a typo, which is good.
>> The others all fail-to-fail with this logic [based on the absence of
>> any matching
>> directories in the extra/ folder].  That's unacceptable.
> I've just been trying to pick apart the original behaviour (pre patch),
> and as Dan has pointed out, this patch makes no change to the existing
> behaviour of v2.2 or trunk: options 1 and 3 both succeed in httpd
> v2.2.13 and v2.2.14 (which you are attempting to veto), and options 2
> and 4 fail as wildcards are not supported (as expected).

Right, so something does vary between 2.2, and the patched behavior.
It introduces new mechanisms to introduce typos into a working config,
more complex typos that previously would have failed.

> As a result, the change you want cannot be backported to v2.2 as it will
> break existing configurations, and the veto is therefore invalid. I
> suspect it has worked like this in the past, I have no idea when this
> behaviour was changed.

No; I accept that there are two patches; one to demand a file (for the next
release) which is actually a simple patch, and one to insist that at least
there is a hit on the directory parttern.

We've already seen one post from someone other than you or I, in agreement that;

  Include /etc/httpd.conf

should fail if httpd.conf is an empty directory.

If this cannot happen, directories not be enforced, than my veto of the current
backport stands, and the feature will just have to wait for with all the
proper precautions against unintended configuration.  Take your pick.

This is an enhancement, so if it can't be done responsibly, it should not be
done on this branch.

View raw message