Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Danek Duvall wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 03:43:39PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If I do want multiple packages to deliver content to those two config
>>> files is there a better way with IPS to do that ?
>>>
>> Deliver the fragments to a directory and have your service coalesce the
>> fragments into the file that gets read. (Or teach the thing that reads the
>> file to read a directory full of fragments, if that's feasible).
>>
>
> We could do that and Dan Anderson suggested we go that way.
>
> However it really annoys me that IPS is basically forcing me to
> re-architect my configuration store. There really has to be a better
> way than this.
>
>
If we were designing this from scratch, I'd imagine better solution
would be IPS giving "primitives" that allowed access to a common
configuration store, and that programs would be expected to use the
IPS-blessed configuration store. But IPS was not invented in a vacuum.
The "no-scripting" rules of IPS seem a bit annoying to me. It should be
possible to do basic file manipulations.
It actually seems to me like a reasonable compromise would be if IPS
allowed some subset of the scripting language to be used, run without
any privileges, and to allow the output from such scripts to be used as
a destination file to be installed. (So scripts would never directly
manage file store, but could access existing files and perform a logical
"merge".)
-- Garrett
