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

apache update in sid



Hello,

I just did an apt-get update && apt-get upgrade on my sid laptop. 

I got this error:
 
Setting up apache (1.3.27.0-1) ...
Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/apache ...
awk: cmd. line:2: fatal: file `/etc/apache/vhosts' is a directory
awk: cmd. line:1: (FILENAME=/etc/apache/srm.conf FNR=8) fatal: file `/etc/apache/vhosts' is a directory
Reloading apache modulesProcessing config directory: /etc/apache/vhosts
 ....snip....
 Processing config file: /etc/apache/vhosts/ylayali.net
 Processing config file: /etc/apache/vhosts/zinextreme.com
failed
 
I use the feature of pointing an Include directive to a directory 
containing a bunch of small config files on both this machine & my Woody
server. This is from my httpd.conf (yeah, I'm pretty anal about
comments):

### Read other VirtualHost directives from /etc/apache/vhosts
# -----------------------------------------------------------
# if you point an Include directive at a directory apache will
# parse all files in that directory (and subdirs) as config files.
# Useful for adding VirtualHosts by creating small config files
# for each host so you can add+remove them without editing any files
# but instead simply adding or deleting them.
# see /usr/share/doc/apache/manual/config for details
Include /etc/apache/vhosts

Since I noticed apache-dev had been held back during the upgrade I did
an 'apt-get install apache-dev' & libdb4.1-dev replaced libdb2-dev, but
it didn't change anything.. 'apache -t' reports 'Syntax OK', but
'/etc/init.d/apache start' fails. 

I double checked that all referenced log file directories, etc exist.

/etc/apache/srm.conf is empty except for a bunch of comments saying it's
better to just use httpd.conf

I checked the changelog, the BTS, recent posts to -user & -isp, & didn't
see anything relevant-looking

My last upgrade was probably < 1 week ago

So, while I begin to triple-check my config, has anybody else seen this? 

Thanks!
Kenneth



Reply to: