Re: virtual hosts
* David N. Welton (davidw@dedasys.com) wrote :
> Thom May <thom@debian.org> writes:
>
> > * David N. Welton (davidw@dedasys.com) wrote :
>
> > Hrmm. could you submit this as a wishlist bug? I'm against this in
> > principle, just need a way of reminding myself.
>
> Well, if you're against it... why bother filing a bug report just to
> close it? I'd at least like to hear what's wrong with it. What I
> think is right with it is this (from the docs at
> http://localhost/doc/apache2-doc/manual/vhosts/name-based.html):
>
Urm, gosh. I hate it when I typo that bad. I meant, of course, "not against
this". Sorry :-)
> Main host goes away
>
> If you are adding virtual hosts to an existing web server, you
> must also create a <VirtualHost> block for the existing
> host. The ServerName and DocumentRoot included in this virtual
> host should be the same as the global ServerName and
> DocumentRoot. List this virtual host first in the
> configuration file so that it will act as the default host.
>
> The problem I foresee is that people see something called 'default',
> and in many cases ('default' sorts pretty early) it will work, but
> then occassionally it won't, and they'll get confused.
>
yup, agreed. I'll just move it to 00default.
> Also, IMO, there is enough 'architecture' in the config directory that
> a short README would be in order. I can try and put something
> together if that would be helpful.
>
It would be extremely helpful; it's something I keep meaning to do.
Apologies for the miss-fire above ;-)
Cheers
-Thom
Reply to: