On 2014-11-23, Andreas Metzler <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-11-22 Heiko Schlittermann <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] >> Hm, a configuration file that is better readable is always a gain. A >> complex configuration is not always read or maintained by an expert. > > Hello, > Well, for me personally distinguishing private router options does not > increase readability. If I set a option I need to understand what it > does and why I want it. The information that it is specific to the > redirect router or would apply to ipliteral router does not interest > me a lot. > > But that is really just me personally, so I do not think it should > count for much in the discussion. > > OTOH I have pretty good idea that renaming the option and dropping the > old name would cause loads of work for many people in the distribution > context (Debian).
Debian works mainly with pre-cooked config files, changing the name of an option would mean reviewing all the packages with "exim" in their name, applying find-and-repace and setting exim version dependancies as apropriate. IOW a large number of trivial tasks. > BTW: Do we currently have router options that do not apply to all > routers but are shared by at least two of them? I'm guessing that the ipliteral, iplookup, and dnslookup routers share some fetures not found in the accept router. -- umop apisdn -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
