On Sunday 18 January 2009, Árpád Magosányi wrote: > 2009/1/18 al davis <[email protected]>: > > The big mistake is that the choice of the config generator > > tool is all or nothing. > > No. It is possible to separate automatically generated > configuration from manual one. The easiest solution is to > provide a place which never written but always read, and > where one can manually override anything automatically > generated.
Of course it is possible. Somebody needs to choose to do it. > > You can use the config generator as much as > > you want, but as soon as you manually edit you must not use > > the config generator any more. If you do, you lose the > > manual edits. > > If you manually edit, you don't want to use the config > generator anymore. Either because you don't like it, or > because you do something which is impossible from the > generator. Let's assume the reason is #2. Then I want to share the modified version with someone who wants to use the config generator. For example ... "exim" .. the config generator takes care of domain names and things like that, but you need to edit it to enable or tune things related to spam filtering. This applies to autoconf too .. The generated file is a monolithic mess, or at least it looks that way to someone who doesn't deal with it every day. Your idea of separating the automatic part from the manual one is a good idea here, but they don't do it. Separating the files is the essence of the old gnucap configure system, which I still keep around so you can use either. I am thinking of returning to it completely. Now I see two very different kinds of config generators. One is capable of generating an initial configuration only. The other is capable of also reconfiguring. > > Another big flaw in the config generators is that they > > often generate really horrible looking config files that > > nobody would want to manually edit, even when the original > > config files are well designed. This wouldn't be such a > > problem if the config generator were relatively complete, > > but mostly they are not. Often, they give you just enough > > to get started. > > I would disagree with the usage of "often" here. Most of > those generated config files are very simple. However this is > a point worth thinking about: do not even try to come out > with a complex config generator if you are not absolutely > have to, because having nothing is far better than having a > complex but incomplete solution. This is just the KISS > principle applied to configuration. "Often" doesn't necessarily mean "majority". I agree with you on "having nothing is far better than having a complex but incomplete solution", which is my real point. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
