Re: conf.d or sites-enabled?

[Adam Conrad <adconrad@0c3.net>]

Faheem Mitha wrote:
> 
> I have no current plans to use Virtual Hosts, so I was wondering if
> there would be any downside to moving the stuff in
> sites-enables/default to conf.d, which seems like the obvious place
> for it to go.

There's no real downside to moving the file anywhere you want, as long
as the main config includes it, and includes it at the right place, but
who really cares?  If you're not using vhosts right now, that just means
you have exactly one vhost -- "default".  Works fine out of the box like
that.

... Adam