[CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir

Ed Heron

Ed at Heron-ent.com
Fri Jul 20 13:11:29 UTC 2012

On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 13:07 -0600, Ed Heron wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 19:40 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
> >  
> > The use of "mv -v ...{,_}" is too clever for this kind of educational
> > document, and should be changed to spell out the full "mv" command.  I
> > get what you're doing there, but the purpose of the document is not to
> > teach clever uses of bash, it's to make it obvious to people that
> > you're renaming the file.  It will trip up the flow of reading for all
> > but the most knowledgeable users, and users who don't understand it
> > will be totally lost.
>   I'm not trying to be clever, I just don't like to type it twice if I
> can avoid it and the typing the higher the chance for a typo.  I don't
> have a problem having both forms.  I'll add it and see what you think.
> > In most documents and scripts, I usually spell out the short form
> > options as well, such as using "--verbose".  Short forms save you
> > typing, but documentation should not trip people up if they don't know
> > what the option means.
>   Normally, I expect, if people don't understand a command, they will
> refer to the man page for the command.  However, to my constant
> disappointment, I understand that many people aren't looking for long
> term knowledge improvement, they are looking for a recipe to blindly
> follow.
> > Also, I find the use of "_" to be obtuse and highly error prone if one
> > were to actually run a server that way.  It's far more obvious to use
> > "disabled", which makes it very clear that those items are disabled.
> > It may work for you but only because that's a convention you came up
> > with so you're used to it, but we're not in dos 8.3 days with
> > filenames, so why not be more descriptive?
>   Having both forms should make it plain that people can use any
> convention they wish.  System administration is not a fixed target.
> Like many things, there are many ways to accomplish the same result.
> When approaching a system that someone else is administrating, we should
> try to maintain the existing conventions instead of forcing our own
> ideas onto a server for which we are not the primary responsible party.
> > In section 6.4, is there a reason not to make a "vhosts.conf" file
> > that contains the "Include" in the in the conf.d/ directory, instead
> > of appending to the httpd.conf, or do you run into ordering issues
> > there?  I try to avoid changing the distro files if possible.
>   Sections 6 and 7 are optional.  There are certainly arguments against
> customization.  In the past, upgrades might have replaced all files
> including configuration files.  In that case, creating a vhosts.conf
> file in the conf.d directory to separate the directive would have been a
> must.  However, the Linux distributions I have used for the past decade
> or so have avoided replacing existing configuration files, expecting
> they might be customized.
>   That said, I like the suggestion.  It would allow for the virtual host
> files to be packaged into an RPM file that could be installed on
> multiple web hosts.
> > 
> > ❧ Brian Mathis

  I made the changes I've described about a week ago.  Brian, does that
satisfy your concerns?  Does anybody else agree with Brian?  Have the
changes I've made make it easier to read the document?

More information about the CentOS-docs mailing list