Re: Linuxconf

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

> > 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

(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.]

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.

> 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.

But you can do a lot with a decent parser.

> this issue was discussed at length last year in the debian-admintool
> list. check the archives from May '97.

Ok.

-- 
Raul


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