Re: Apache2: httpd.conf or apache2.conf?
On 9/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Not only that, but if you compile it by hand from the upstream
> distribution, you should be prepared to follow all the security
> advisories (i.e., simple pointing apt to sarge/updates will not allow
> you to receive the security updates for packages you install yourself).
> I am not trying to say that it is somehow bad, but people should be
> aware that there is an additional burden to supporting hand-compiled
> packages. At least if you customize a .deb package and install it with
> apt, then you will see when security updates become available.
I'm with Robert. I think that the updates are extremely important for
maintaining a healthy server. If I had to manually update all of my
servers I would be in a lot of trouble. That kind of thing takes way
to much time. Manual update guys are like cowboys to me. I respect
them a lot, but I just don't know how they get anything else done. I
suppose if my only job were to keep my systems updated I could work
like that, but apt is one of the reasons I use Debian instead of
FreeBSD. I like FreeBSD a lot too, but Debian is easier to work with
in my environment.
yeah, Apache really spread the httpd.conf file all over the place.
Eventually I'll get used to it. just getting into the hang of it now.
I hated it at first, but then I reflected on the past and how it was
getting a bit annoying to scroll through all those lines to make one
little change on a virtual host or something like that. I fully
embrace mods-enabled, sites-enabled, and the like. I guess Apache made
the change from httpd.conf to Apache2.conf to make it clear that
things are being consolidated. Let's hope for more of that in the
future. It will take some time to get used to, but I think it's a