Re: RFC: new network config (was: Re: network configuration)
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 01:10:34AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 12:13:23PM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> > >> "CS" == Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> > CS> #IP:domain:username:CGI?:Analog?
> > CS> x.x.x.x:www.foo.bar:foobar:Y:Y
> > Isn´t the colon used in IPv6 addresses? Maybe my memory serves me
> > wrong.
>
> It doesn't. It's *probably* still possible to parse it unambiguously
> even so, but I wouldn't like to try it.
>
> I personally think the space delimeted style of fstab and friends looks
> better, but if I can get away with not having to write this, I'm not
> going to complain too much however it ends up. :)
using : or spaces/tabs doesn't make much difference to me. if : is a
problem for future compatibility with ipv6 then i'll switch to spaces.
> One note though -- I'm probably going to be a little bit reticent over
> adding things like completely automated httpd.conf generation. First,
> because that's really apache (and netgod's) business, not netbase's,
i don't think that the apache httpd.conf generation should go in
netbase. however, the config file used to do all the ifconfigs should
have extra information for other virtual-host services like http and
ftp.
the only thing that the netbase package needs to care about is the IP
address fields in order to create the ip alias interfaces, although even
that could be done by another package if necessary.
i'm not even sure if httpd.conf generation for vhosts belongs in the
apache package. i'm thinking of a 'virtual-services' package which
contains a set of scripts which sysadmins can pick and choose from to
automate common tasks.
if it's written in a modular fashion, support for other web servers
could be added too (although i know next to nothing about roxen or the
others that we provide). i'm certainly planning on adding support for
proftpd.
> and second because I don't want to make a system that while it makes
> the normal jobs trivial (eg, setting up a virtual host), makes
> the harder jobs (eg, setting up a virtual host with foo extra,
> non-standard settings) even worse (eg, by making you add your changes
> to httpd.conf every time you upgrade netbase or some such).
>
> I don't think the latter concern is insurmountable by any means,
> however.
ensuring that auto-configurator tools work WITHOUT sacrificing a system
admin's flexibility is one of my bugbears. I refuse to use junk which
does that kind of thing, and i'd be ashamed to write anything that
committed the same crime myself.
check the perl script i posted last night. it doesn't generate an entire
httpd.conf. it generates <VirtualHost>...</VirtualHost> fragments which
are concatenated with httpd.conf (by an as yet unwritten Makefile). the
script uses md5sum to check whether the system admin has made any custom
changes to any of the fragment(s).
if there's a better way to do this, then i'm keen to hear about it.
BTW, i wrote the first cut in perl. i may change that to e-perl or
perl's Text::Template module and make the "template" fragment a config
file so that sysadmins can easily customise the default output.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: