Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171106082105.GA3376@redhat.com>
References: <CAFedD42h4Osk8k3y00ob3vo15c2FHJXOmnuBJc=HTSj0-tUyNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171106082105.GA3376@redhat.com>
From: Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:25:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKQ1sVPmrDg3UjoXLvRrnUuH_fEqs7+KYvanR0fsYeKquX=rKw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IncludeOptional: feature request to be less strict
To: httpd-dev <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
archived-at: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 11:25:26 -0000

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Luca Toscano wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it was asked to
>> relax a bit how IncludeOptional works to allow a config to specify a path
>> in IncludeOptional that might not be (yet) on the file system (without
>> using * in the directory path).
>>
>> For example, in the bugzilla task this use case is presented:
>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585#c6
>>
>> I found the report while dealing with an apache config issue on Debian
>> Stretch with a colleague:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=878920
>>
>> I am wondering if there is the chance to review the IncludeOptional
>> behavior or if there are solid reason not to.
>
> I think having IncludeOptional do nothing if any path element is missing
> makes more sense, I'd assumed it worked like that already. Should be
> fine to make that change in 2.4.x too IMO.

+1

Regards,
Yann.