<bd9320b30903192217p3a438914w1bff0cf628e49239@mail.gmail.com> <20090320052912.GA72589@rambler-co.ru> <bd9320b30903192243v71c9df72s1a4baef9b14c198d@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:43:43PM -0700, mike wrote:

> 2009/3/19 Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:17:45PM -0700, mike wrote:
> >
> >> I get a warning when placing it outside of a location block. I don't
> >> think it -needs- to be inside of one. Would be nice to team up with
> >> the patch you made for the next release... :)
> >
> > I'm not sure that it should be done.
> > Could you show use case ?
>
> for a site basically dedicated to a single app... no need for location / {}
>
> server {
> listen 80;
> server_name michaelshadle.com;
> index index.php index.html;
> root /home/mike/web/michaelshadle.com;
> include /etc/nginx/defaults.conf;
> include /etc/nginx/expires.conf;
> try_files $uri $uri/ /wordpress/index.php?q=$uri;
> location ~ \.php$ {
> fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:11000;
> }
> }
>
> my current workaround:
>
> server {
> listen 80;
> server_name michaelshadle.com;
> index index.php index.html;
> root /home/mike/web/michaelshadle.com;
> include /etc/nginx/defaults.conf;
> include /etc/nginx/expires.conf;
>
> location / {
> try_files $uri $uri/ /wordpress/index.php?q=$uri;
>
> location ~ \.php$ {
> fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:11000;
> }
> }
> }
>
> A nit bit-picky but I don't see the need for the restriction, unless
> the code is very difficult for it.

Actually, I have decided from the very start that each server {} should
have "location / {}" and it was surprise for me when people started to
use configurations as in the 1st example. There are even some bugfixes
related to this since I did not expect such usage.

I will think if try_files in server{} is possible. You may try the attached
patch, it just enable try_files in server context (warning, I did not test it).


--
Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/