Hi, On 11.06.2012 00:42, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Does this mean that conf.d and sites-enabled will be replaced by > conf-enabled? Will the user need to do the change manually? Should > a same file name in conf.d and in sites-enabled be discouraged? No, sites-enabled and conf-enabled will co-exist, The former for virtual hosts and sites, the latter for global configuration directives like web application configurations. This is not different to the state being. It will just be possible to /disable/ such configuration snippets similar to modules and sites on purpose. That is, the user will be able to do a2enconf/a2disconf some-file which will do a symlink magic similar to what we do today for sites-available/sites-enabled. This transition will need to be done manually (for files which reside in conf.d today), but I wrote a script which can automate the procedure. We just won't (can't) call it by policy on upgrades. Stefan, I am thinking about enabling the conf-available/conf-enabled mechanism in 2.2 already, altogether with conf.d. What do you think about that? That way people have 3+ years to get used to that. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature