[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What is the reason of using apache2.conf instead of httpd.conf?



On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:57:28PM +0200, Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
> * Daniel Stone (daniel@fooishbar.org) disait :
> > httpd.conf is supported as well.  The idea was that apache2.conf would
> > be a tiny, minimal file that users never needed to change, while
> > httpd.conf would remain for user customisations.  This is because people
> > would often customise some of the more ridiculous settings in
> > httpd.conf, and then get annoyed when dpkg prompted them to ask what to
> > do about it when it changed upstream.  At least, speaking as the guy who
> > made this change, that was my motivation.
> 
> Then, in a way, httpd.conf is a kind of .local conffile now? 

httpd.conf is never modified by the package, and is intended for
customisation by the administrator (or the packages he installs by hand;
non-Debian-specific install scripts will tend to want to eat httpd.conf
instead of using conf.d) only.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: