On 14-Apr-09, at 4:57 AM, André Warnier wrote:
So would you like to try again ?
Sure. I'll make it dead simple for you: Why does this happen?
sh-3.2# apachectl -S
[Tue Apr 14 04:53:49 2009] [warn] NameVirtualHost *:80 has no
VirtualHosts
VirtualHost configuration:
wildcard NameVirtualHosts and _default_ servers:
*:80 is a NameVirtualHost
default server gam (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:31)
port 80 namevhost gam (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:
31)
port 80 namevhost localtest (/private/etc/apache2/users/
rich.conf:55)
port 80 namevhost vp (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:63)
port 80 namevhost if (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:75)
port 80 namevhost hq (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:87)
port 80 namevhost hco (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:
95)
port 80 namevhost gam (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:
31)
port 80 namevhost localtest (/private/etc/apache2/users/
rich.conf:55)
port 80 namevhost vp (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:63)
port 80 namevhost if (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:75)
port 80 namevhost hq (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:87)
port 80 namevhost hco (/private/etc/apache2/users/rich.conf:
95)
Syntax OK
Observation (again, making it dead simple for you):
1. no virtualhosts
2. 13 virtualhosts
3. Syntax OK
So 0 == 13. Also, 0 == 13 is "OK".
Conclusion: Problems Most developers, have limited patience with
misleading software. From Wikipedia:
"A document (noun) is a bounded physical representation of body of
information designed with the capacity (and usually intent) to
communicate."
Do we have to go into the assumption of that this communication is to
be proactive? So take this wonderful idea, apply it to the Observations
Bug as submitted, or horribly bad documentation.
Or would you rather me ask a question that doesn't shed light on
issues? Kind of like "only behave the way we wish"? Then why have a
list? You want approval? Get a dog. I'm here because things are not
clear. Yes, it's a list for users. Users are not developers, hence
the difference in lists. Hence the need for documentation, to take
users into a space for having the need for such lists. Pretty simple,
don't you think? Most areas where you offer a service, you minimize
things so that they are not misleading, as they apparently are here.
See the example above.
I have little patience for you. I'm sure the above information is
completely OK by you, but that would only shed light on the real issue
of most open source software, which is accompanied by questionable
technically written documentation. So yes, the documentation is
horribly written. If you can find 2.2 documentation that sheds light
on this, which I've spent the better part of 2 days reading, then
please point it out. Documentation is about understanding, which it
has not provided. So yes, it goes into the bug reporting system as a
bug, as it's not performing as expected, as defined by the docs. If
it found that the performance is as expected by the developers, yet
the documentation doesn't provide insight, then the documentation
needs to be fixed. That, is as much a part of apache as the server
itself.
And be nice.
Rich in Toronto
...now go get on your bike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
