FS#4064 - Apache new configuration proposal
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Lorenzo Villani (TheArbiter) - Sunday, 26 February 2006, 16:59 GMT
Last edited by Alexander Baldeck (kth5) - Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 17:10 GMT
Opened by Lorenzo Villani (TheArbiter) - Sunday, 26 February 2006, 16:59 GMT
Last edited by Alexander Baldeck (kth5) - Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 17:10 GMT
|
Details
I suggest to change the default apache2 configuration files
layout to the new shiny gentoo-based conf style.
Gentoo-based confs are modular and easy to edit and maitain. I've made several modifications to the original Gentoo-confs and i've created an updated /etc/rc.d/httpd initscript. With these config files httpd can also be controlled from /etc/conf.d/httpd file for startup options and more. Attached to this bugreport you can find my configuration files. This is only a proposal but I would feel happy if used. ;-) |
This task depends upon
Closed by Alexander Baldeck (kth5)
Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 17:10 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 17:10 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
in any case, the vhosts.d is still a bit inconsequent. it should rather be sites-available which then get symlinked to sites-enabled. just not naming a file .conf to disable it, can get to be quite a hassle.
For example you can enable the PHP5 module by simply adding -D PHP5 to HTTPD_OPTS or -D MY_VHOST to enable your VHOST.
I repeat this is only a proposal of porting gentoo-syle config to arch.
I think that this method is even better than the actual one ;-)
(PS: Sorry for my bad english ^^')
oh well, assigned the request to the maintainer. let's see how Judd decides. :-)
If someone wants to implement it Gentoo-like way - he can do this, but default should remain as they are now. There are few ways to deal with vhosts and other config settings, and each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. So let's not make things complicated by default. IMHO defaults should be simple.
god save the queen! :D
as JGC and i more or less explained already, this kind of config can easily be created by hand without having pacman break things on upgrades. i do not believe there's a need for another package for apache just for the sake of a different configuration style nor a apache-config-* like thing.
i am waiting for Judd's decision about this.