Comments on: VirtualHost overlap on port 443, the first has precedence

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 17 May 2010 22:52:38 +0000

For me, the solution was making sure I didn’t have multiple “Listen 80 / Listen 443″ declarations in the various *.conf files I was loading.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:23:44 +0000

thanks. easy to read. concise, to the point. unlike other sites where you have to read 10 pages before they get to the point.

By: Alexis

Alexis — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 18:40:16 +0000

Wow, thanks. Upgrading from Apache 2.2.11 to 2.2.15 in Gentoo this fixed everything…

Unfortunatelly it took me two hours to find this post.

Thanks !

By: Justin Smithies

Justin Smithies — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:57:20 +0000

Thanks for that , that error was driving me nuts ! Still took a while to find where to put it in Ubuntu 9.04 . It goes in /etc/apache2/ports.conf just add the NameVirtualHost *:443 even though the comments in the file say its not supported it does work.

By: immeëmosol

immeëmosol — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:37:34 +0000

That should have read,
something like (hopefully) the following:

By: immeëmosol

immeëmosol — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:35:47 +0000

Didn’t work here (Ubuntu Jaunty),
in /etc/apache2/ports.conf it says
that NameBased VirtualHosts are not yet supported.

`Fixed` it by changing

… :S
little things …

By: YannicK

YannicK — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:23:07 +0000

Thank you though, you shown up first in Google! 9-)
Nice ! Very Nice :p

By: Rick VanderHaas

Rick VanderHaas — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:11:24 +0000

Or change the NameVirtualHost *:443 into the site name, for example in your config:

By: YomGuy

YomGuy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:17:03 +0000

Note that on Debian, this option is usually addable to /etc/apache2/ports.conf

Thanks !

By: Alexis Wilke

Alexis Wilke — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:29:10 +0000

Wow! I had that line commented because in the previous version of 2.x that I was running having that line turn ON created an error. So in other words they inverted the definition of the NameVirtualHost function…

And also I do not have it for port 80 and yet port 80 works just fine. Again, I’m surprised…

Thank you though, you shown up first in Google! 9-)
Alexis