[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linuxconf

--On Tue, Jun 2, 1998 11:18 am +1000 "Craig Sanders" <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > The proper solution would be to fix the parser.
>> >
>> > unfortunately, this means placing arbitrary restrictions on the
>> > config files....anything which hasn't been programmed into the
>> > parser can not be handled by it, and will get blown away by the
>> > pretty GUI config tool next time it is run.
>> So support the full grammar of the file.
> debian currently has 1956 packages. most of them require a config file.
> do you think having that many individual parsers is viable?

Ooh.. debian has 1956 packages.  Do you think having that many postrm
scripts is viable?

Of course it's viable.  It just becomes a package maintainer responsibility.
 In the vast majority of cases, the package maintainer ought to be able to
use the *same code* as the package itself for parsing config files.

In many well factored cases, this will be as simple as extracting config.c
or some similarly named file from the distribution and making a few changes
to it.

Then, when a new upstream comes along, the maintainer checks to see if
config-file format has changed.

Of course, it *would* be nice to see packages slowly migrating towards a
standard configuration engine... and I imagine that may well happen with

Note that not all packages need to move to linux conf straight away...


|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd        |
|  Jules aka     |                               |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: