On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:33:02PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:40:54PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:Hmm, IIRC upstream states that modules should be 'loaded' only once, so I think this shouldn't be done.I am confused: You closed the bug due to lack of response, disregarding that in fact you agree that there is a bug?No, I'm saying you can't touch server.modules in your file....and the bug was a request to allow enabling modules in separate files rather than needing to edit the master file, no?Yes, although I'm not sure that interface is appropriate for other scripts to use. What if the interface (lighty-enable-mod) changes, for example?
If lightly-enable-mod changes, then it changes. And all users of it (both sysadmins and packages) need to adapt.
Your package provides an ABI until it breaks. That's normal.What I propose is to use that lightly-enable-mod mechanism for server modules: Provide one file per module, and enable by default the ones you now enable by default in the master file.
Then other packages can request enabling of modules, and if already enabled, then no harm is done. That is better than other packages providing snippets themselves which both provide configurations and enable modules - because then there is high risk of multiple enabling same module.
Have a look at how Apache does similar these days. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
