What can be defined in sites-enable/a_site

[Alan DeKok]

On Apr 14, 2015, at 3:30 PM, James Sumners <james.sumners at clayton.edu> wrote:
>>  Documentation is a problem with most open source projects.  Do people complain about it?  Yes, lots.  Do people contribute?  Rarely.
> 
> How am I supposed to do that when I don't know the information?

  Learn, then contribute.  Instead, the process typically goes: learn, move on to other projects.

> Yep, `mods-available/README.rst` does say one word about if the modules config block can be declared more than once, or that it is unique, or even that it exists.

  <sigh>  And radiusd.conf?  I told you to look there, too.

# MODULE CONFIGURATION
#
#  The names and configuration of each module is located in this section.
#
#  After the modules are defined here, they may be referred to by name,
#  in other sections of this configuration file.
...

  i.e. MODULES ARE DEFINED HERE.  Not "they can be defined in multiple places".  But THEY ARE HERE.  Full stop.  All it takes is 5 minutes reading to THINK, and conclude that they likely can't be put anywhere else.

  Your stubbornness here is telling.  This is about the fourth time I've said it's documented in radiusd.conf.  Yet you insist on looking in the wrong place.  Again, and again, and again.

  This is also typical.  The people who complain the most are the ones who fight hardest against being educated.

>>  I'll note that you're changing the subject from *module* documentation to *proxy* documentation.  There's only one reason to do that.  I'm right, and you know it.
> 
> What more did you want me to write on the modules section in radiusd.conf? You wrote basically everything it says for the introduction in the post I replied to. Do you want me to just quote back your own examples?

  Don't be obtuse.

  You claimed the docs didn't exist.  I pointed out that they do.  And you didn't read them.  Instead of saying "you're right, I didn't look there", you changed the subject to "But the OTHER documentation I never mentioned sucks, too".

  This is dishonest.  It's also typical of people who fight hard against being educated.

> http://networkradius.com/doc/3.0.7/ is looking pretty good. It should probably be linked in the top level README, but that seems to be for documenting changes from previous versions.
> 
> But, really, why would you have needed to start writing that site if what I'm saying isn't at least partially true?

  I never said the documentation was perfect.  I said that YOUR ISSUES were answered in the documentation.  Which they are.

  The commercial documentation is there because it's intended to contain excruciating levels of detail.  Detail that requires a paid person to spend months working on.

  There's no conflict here, other than your attempts to change the subject to "prove" me wrong.

 Your attitude here is telling.  You're complaining about the status of the documentation, but then refusing to read it, even when I tell you 4 times where it is.  THAT is why you're having such a hard time with it.

  So... go read the docs on http://networkradius.com/doc/.  Your questions are answered there.  If they're not, wait a few months, and the site will be updated with more documentation.  Either way, it's clear that the main problem here is that you're fanatically set against reading documentation and following instructions.

  Alan DeKok.