| Re: Can't change upload_max_filesize [message #183216 is a reply to message #183203] |
Sat, 12 October 2013 17:51   |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Fiver wrote:
> I'm afraid I have to full-quote that whole vitriolic nonsense...
Thanks, but no, thanks.
> And calling me a liar, several times.
I called you a liar one time, with the provision that it is also possible
that you simply may not know what you are talking about. That you do not
know what you are talking about is indicated by several facts, for example
that you consider it worthwhile to search binaries for plain text to solve
the problem at hand.
> It just shows that you seriously lack understanding of the Ubuntu/Debian
> file layout.
YMMD.
> The results I gave you were pasted word-for-word from the box I'm typing
> on, with only two minor modifications:
> - I replaced the actual project and host names with "redacted"
> - I added some artificial line breaks for Usenet
>
> The directory /etc/apache2/sites-enabled usually contains links, but
> *nothing* says that the source of those links has to be
> /etc/apache2/sites-available.
a2ensite(8) does. That is the tool you use in Debian-based systems like
Ubuntu to manage Virtual Hosts. If you are a responsible server
administrator anyway.
> I tend to place a new vhost config file into its project's SVN directory,
> where it belongs,
No, it does not. Not everybody checking out the project needs to have the
same paths. In fact, it is rather very unlikely that they have the same
paths on their local servers as on the remote server, and including the VH
configuration in the repository could be viewed as both as a hassle for
committers and a security risk. Those files or their contents should be
distributed via other means, for example in a secured team wiki.
> and then link it into sites-enabled. a2ensite/a2dissite are not used here.
Your problem. It bears no relevance to the OP's problem with a vintage
Ubuntu Linux, though.
> Think about it; this should explain the misconceptions making up the
> largest part of your post.
There are no misconceptions on my part here. You are comparing apples and
oranges, taking an arbitrary Linux-based system as basis for your fallacious
arguments.
> What else was there... oh yes, "I could not be root in Ubuntu".
I did not say that, for I *know* how one can be root on Ubuntu despite the
defaults (BTDT). I said you *would* not *be* root *by default* on Ubuntu.
Big difference.
> And I have better things to do than quarrel with arrogant upstarts like
> you. If you don't have anything valuable to add, I won't be replying to
> your garbage anymore.
One must wonder if you posted this way if you had to stand by your position
and your postings with your real name like people taking responsibility for
their actions would.
Score adjusted
--
PointedEars
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]