Re: Apache2: httpd.conf or apache2.conf?
On 9/19/05, David Huemer <email@example.com> wrote:
> I prefer httpd.conf too, but deleting the apache2.conf is no good idea.
> The only good thing about the apache2.conf is, that it includes the
> httpd.conf so all user defined configuration can be done in the
> httpd.conf and they can be seen very easily. But that is also possible
> if you include a completly new configuration file as myconfig.ext into
> the httpd.conf.
deleting apache2.conf is not a good idea because that is the
configuration file which apache2 is calling. think of it like the
/ = apache2.conf
if you kill / then you kill /var. if you kill /var you do not kill / .
apache2.conf my be good for reasons that are not immediately apparent as well.
when the apache daemon is running what information does it need to
know all of the time, or some of the time. there are logical ways to
make a distinction. I'll make a code like comparison to what I'm
trying to get across.
function <make shoes>
include (soles, laces, canvas, tongue, insole)
function <make boots>
include (soles, heels , leather , insole)
when <make boots> is called there is no need to include laces, canvas,
or tongue. so it's not included (obviously). if these things were
included into the function it would be a waste.
when <mods-enabled> is called there is no need for <apache2.conf>.
When <apache2.conf> is called then <mods-enabled> is always included.
I would have to look at the code to see if this sort of logic is being
used. which I guess I could if really wanted to, but I don't, because
it works really well and there is no need to.
I would discourage working around the system that Apache has set up
for Debian. there are probably a lot of good reasons for it being
done the way that it is.