<bd9320b30903192217p3a438914w1bff0cf628e49239@mail.gmail.com> <20090320052912.GA72589@rambler-co.ru> <bd9320b30903192243v71c9df72s1a4baef9b14c198d@mail.gmail.com> <20090320060148.GC72589@rambler-co.ru> <bd9320b30903200025t49606c09jd0bf4827d0497917@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:25:39AM -0700, mike wrote:

> well if this is something you would rather not support, then perhaps i
> should go by your rules.
>
> i try to keep my configurations simple, and it seemed like for most of
> my sites i did not need the location / {} and it also conflicted
> sometimes with other rules (probably due to incorrect modifiers and
> user error)

A server has location context with empty name "", therefore it should
work. If you have problems - report. However, if you have a complex site,
it's better to use "location /" as clearly visible fallback.

> i can try the patch if you'd like though, or i can start to make base
> level location / {} in all my configs (honestly 90% of my sites dont
> need any)

Anyway, try to see if the patch works.

> 2009/3/19 Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>:
> > 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 {
> >>