but at least in this case the files will
both be small enough that it shouldn't really be a problem in practice.
Shouldn't? Really? Those qualifications indicate potential problems.
Not really, it just means that there will be some small number of users who
will need to do things differently, e.g. those who refuse to put logs in
/var/log or similar. I would say more than 99.9% of users wouldn't notice.
Splitting lighttpd.conf makes things harder for the majority of users.
For some, it might make things a little bit easier.
The only conclusion I can draw is that it should not be split.
If you're really that much against the idea then I won't try to persuade you
otherwise. All I can say is that it would make life much easier for anyone
who uses tools to manage the config files, and I would be surprised if anyone
else had any problems with it at all.
For the record, most other packages for server apps have their Debian-specific
settings elsewhere - either in separate config files or in /etc/default/* so
the idea isn't anything unusual. In fact I've been able to configure my whole
server through Puppet and only lighttpd and squid required Debian-specific
paths to be hard-coded (luckily for Squid it was one path in /var/log which is
the same everywhere so it wasn't a problem.)
But, if you really dislike the idea that much, I will treat lighttpd as a
special case and duplicate all the Debian paths and options in my config
repository :-(
Cheers,
Adam.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
