Lighttpd

include_shell "cat conf.d/*conf" 

that is not enough?

Replying to darix:

{{{ include_shell "cat conf.d/*conf" }}}

that is not enough?

Yes, not enough. I think that include_shell is not definite, and I need no error when conf.d/*.conf files not found.

This is really needed so that web application packages (rpm/dpkg/whatever) can put a file containing their configuration details in the conf.d directory and have it picked up by the web server automatically.

-- DavidDick

If the directory may be not containing files matching the mask, you just need to write a script instead of using cat.

Replying to stbuehler:

If the directory may be not containing files matching the mask, you just need to write a script instead of using cat.

First, sorry for my poor english.

I thinks that this is only developer's mind. As a system engienneer, include shell is very discomfort on trouble shooting. It's not clean. If I have situation of other system trouble shooting that is not mine, I will check user define scripts. And if this scripts has very dirty code, maybe I will forgive. :-)

As a sysstem engineer, I want to be removed include_shell option. :-) Almost of lighttpd users is not developer, and they have not skill of trouble shoot themselves.

So, I think that there is other way instead of include_shell, must use other way. include_shell is the only option for a geek.

On this case, I want to say deep discussion. But I stop this thread cause of my poor english. :-(

To search the directory conf.d for *.conf files and include them you could use this:

include_shell "find conf.d -maxdepth 1 -name '*.conf' -exec cat {} \;" 

And i disagree: if you cannot code such simple scripts, you should not be a server admin (at least not on a server which needs this feature).

I don't say that we don't want this feature - but applying such a patch needs time, and there are many more imporant things on my todo list.

Btw: The debian guys coded a perl script to include "enabled" modules as apache does.

And many people got problems as they used this system. It may be good for apache, but i wouldn't recommend it with lighttpd.

Replying to stbuehler:

And i disagree: if you cannot code such simple scripts, you should not be a server admin (at least not on a server which needs this feature).

So, I said that is only developer's mind. There is so many servers that have no server admin. I don't agree yours, too.

But, I agree that this patch is useless on lighttpd. And I don't want to fix it official tree with this patch. On case that need this patch, anybody use this patch.

This patch is for somebody who need this patch for their some case.

This is difference of a point of view between you and me. I think that you are not wrong and I'm not wrong.

As we agree we don't need it upstream, i close this.