On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 07:29 -0400, Viaduct Productions wrote: > On 14-Apr-09, at 7:00 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > > > I'm slightly confused, as the thread title says 'LocationMatch inside > > VirtualHost', which doesn't seem related? > > When I inserted the LocationMatch inside the VirtualHost directive, I > was getting errors as reported. > > >> > >> Observation (again, making it dead simple for you): > >> 1. no virtualhosts > > (incorrect assumption, that is not what apache said) > > Wow. And this is why I rarely post any information, because then it > becomes a debate. So I will repost: > > [Tue Apr 14 06:05:15 2009] [warn] NameVirtualHost *:80 has no > VirtualHosts > Which does NOT say "Apache has no vhosts". You may be misunderstanding what the message says. > > >> 2. 13 virtualhosts > > (correct) > >> 3. Syntax OK > > (correct) > >> > >> So 0 == 13. Also, 0 == 13 is "OK". > > The syntax is correct, but the semantics are slightly incorrect, > > hence > > the error message. > >> > >> Conclusion: Problems Most developers, have limited patience with > >> misleading software. From Wikipedia: > > > > I'm inferring that the problem is: > > You have vhosts, you get the error message 'NameVirtualHost *:80 has > > no > > VirtualHosts', and you don't understand why? I'll step you through > > it.. > > Wonderful. I'll assume this isn't in the docs. Well, I didn't imagine this up out of thin air. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/core.html#namevirtualhost > > > 1) Name based vhosts are 'named' by the socket they come in on. > > > > 2) The names are specified by NameVirtualHost <name>. > > OK, so this is where the docs do not indicate any of this. > > > 3) The name must specify an interface/socket to react to, eg '*' or > > '*:80' or '127.0.0.1:80'. > > See, when I put in my internal IP, more errors came up with respect to > apachectl configtest. Without a conf file, and being told what errors came up, that is as useful as a slap around the face. > > > 4) A particular vhost uses a named socket to react to by specifying > > the > > name in the '<VirtualHost name>' directive, eg '<VirtualHost *>' or > > '<VirtualHost *:80>'. > > > > 5) Apache looks at all the NameVirtualHost directives, and then > > looks at > > all the VirtualHost directives, comparing the names. > > > > 6) If there are any names specified with 'NameVirtualHost foo', that > > do > > not have a corresponding '<VirtualHost foo>', then apache will warn > > 'NameVirtualHost foo has no VirtualHosts'. > > > > Since you haven't provided your httpd.conf, I couldn't tell you any > > more > > what is wrong, but for sure the PEBKAC. > > Actually, no. No modifications to httpd.conf, as I instructed earlier > on in the thread. And the feedback suggests something different, as > stated. No modifications to httpd.conf at all? I'm __staggered__ that you have so many vhosts with a stock config. > > I don't know what it is about open source people. Documentation and > service applications like configtest should provide a complete set of > information so that people don't go astray in their thinking. So no, > it isn't PEBKAC, or whatever the cute little acronym is. Things like > these are used so often that you assign it to people that have no > clue, as it happens so often, but under no circumstance does it ever > indicate that perhaps the whole package is short of making sense to as > many people. Take the frequency in which stuff like this crops up, to > suggest that more can be done to explain the application and how it > works. It's actually quite a simple item, and it would alleviate > single postings like this to rectify confusion amongst users that get > their information from remedial documentation and feedback from > console commands. PEBKAC = Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. It wasn't meant as a slur, just that clearly you don't know Apache, and if we were to switch you for a me, or an Eric, then the problem would be fixed. > > In any case, thank you for the notes. It's the explanation like this > which I think should be up front. I think it's a shame that this will > get somewhat buried. > > Rich in Toronto > ...now go get on your bike If you had provided your configuration, then we might be able to see where you are going wrong. However, all you seem to want to do is post really really long winded rants, with little substance or content, whilst complaining non stop about the software quality, support quality and documentation quality of free software. Good luck with that. Cheers Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|