Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

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

 



Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    Eric Covener wrote:

        On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor
        <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

            Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.


        What do you mean by the format?


    http://httpd.apache.org/docs/__trunk/upgrading.html
    <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html> covers this...
    snippet...

       In this example, all requests are allowed.

       2.2 configuration:

       Order allow,deny
       Allow from all

       2.4 configuration:

       Require all granted

    This is what bricked everyone's Apache config.


http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html

    Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
    suffix,
    which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old
    symlinks removed
    (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.


Is that a Debian thing?  Apache httpd didn't make any such change.

This might have been a Debian-ism or Ubuntu-ism.

I had no time to check, only time to fix.

Dark domains == red-in-face clients... with hoes... pitchforks... torches...

Shudder...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





[Index of Archives]     [Open SSH Users]     [Linux ACPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Squid]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux