Re: Consesus on Linuxconf?

[Andreas Degert <ad@papyrus.hamburg.com>]

Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:

> Andreas Degert <ad@papyrus.hamburg.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
data).

ciao

Andreas

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 debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org