Re: Linuxconf
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > So support the full grammar of the file.
>
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> > debian currently has 1956 packages. most of them require a config
> > file. do you think having that many individual parsers is viable?
>
> (1) We don't have that many packages which require configuration
ok, not all of them have configuration files. many of them do.
> (2) Yes, I think it's viable to have a parser for each package which
> requires configuration. [Or, several packages may share a parser if that
> seems reasonable.]
and what happens when the upstream version of the package changes config
file format (as happens occasionally)? a new parser has to be written.
even if the format remains the same but new options are added, the
parser has to be rewritten.
> If that's not viable it's probably better to introduce a new config
> file format for everybody than to introduce a scheme which is
> a mix of several config file formats one of which is too complicated
> for linuxconf to deal with.
i'm not sure what you mean by this. it doesn't appear to relate to
anything i said.
> > however, it's a problem which is inherent to non-templated
> > configuration tools. linuxconf hasn't changed the way it operates,
> > so at best it will have made the parsers a bit smarter but not
> > eliminated the problem entirely.
>
> I think it's also reasonable for linuxconf to present a dialog to the
> effect that the configuration is beyond its ken, and it has a choice
> of either replacing it entirely or doing nothing.
imo, the tool should presume that the person who edited the config file
is competent and leave it alone.
> But you can do a lot with a decent parser.
and there's still a lot you can't do, even with an excellent parser.
craig
--
craig sanders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: