Re: Consesus on Linuxconf?
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Andreas Degert <email@example.com> wrote:
> > No, i meant you can't prevent the parser to error out on some edited
> > config files, not that it will happen with every edited config file.
> config files which are broken should be treated as error conditions.
> For example, if you put this email message into your /etc/hosts
> that would be a broken config file. [Unless you fixed it by
> turning all these new illegal lines into comments.]
please don't answer too quickly; if you think about it a second (in
the context of the thread) you will realize that I wrote about
syntactically and semantically correct config files that are too
complex for the parser.
For, samba, a config file overwriting some global setting indirectly
with the line
include = /etc/smb.conf.%m
occurring later in the config file (%m expands into the client machine
name) is already tough for the parser (and the ui displaying the
PS: If you really succeed in writing such a parser correctly, it
should be easy to additionally make it ask me in such a case if I
want to start a new samba configuration from scratch and where I
want it to save my misplaced email :-))
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com