On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Callum Lerwick wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 19:29 -0800, Shane Stixrud wrote:
What would it take to convince you?
The limitations around automating/scripting system changes without
replacing whole config files is one problem. How about the differing
syntax between most applications without a technical need, some of which
have horrid syntax. The impracticality of programs sharing configuration
elements with each other without each application being aware of every
other applications magic syntax. The impossibility of having an automated
system for saving and reverting changes without saving whole config files
after every change and then figuring out what changed and why. Or how
about the fact developing configuration guis/tools is many orders of
magnitude more difficult when their is no consistent config file standard?
Look at Debian if you want to see how config files should be handled.
Judicious use of conf.d type directories goes a long way.
Does not address any of the above in any significant way... in other words
I fail to see your point.
Fedora's own /etc/sysconfig hierarchy is a good example of how config
files can be brain dead simple, hand editable and GUI configurable.
Awww we agree! Considering that ALL of RedHat's sysconfig config
files are basically KEYS with values how could I not? If you give sysconfig
a bit more structure (directories), have the directory names themselves be
part of the syntax/semantics and standardized the
creation/removal/modification/searching and querying of these files in the
form of a library we end up with....... Elektra
....
Shane
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
