FYI, I made a commit yesterday making the full list configurable only by gobohide.conf. The task is still there, and it just sources the config file. No modifications were made to the code itself. Please run 'Compile GoboHide 0.11' if you wanna test it.
Lucas On 8/24/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:39:59 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/23/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:15:17 +0200, Lucas C. Villa Real >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On 8/23/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Yes, of course. The Task can just 'source' gobohide.conf and append >> >> > the extra entries to the operation. I can do that later, or you can >> >> > make your commits to the package, in the same way as the kernel >> >> > modules are handled in the UserDefinedModules array at BootOptions >> / >> >> > BootScripts/BootUp. >> >> > >> >> My idea was that all directories should be selected from the .conf >> file, >> >> not just the extras, to ensure full customability (is that a word? >> :) ) >> > >> > I don't see that as an advantage, as there's always a static "base" >> > which is going to be hidden. >> Are there really a static base? What about those users that don't want, >> for example, /proc hidden? There could exist such a user and is it a bad >> thing to have all directories customizable? > > My 2 cents: I don't like to base arguments on hypothetical users, but > I think users would either want all files hidden or none, in which > case they'd just remove the GoboHide task from their BootUp scripts. Well, I had /root hidden as well (wasn't original in my version of the GoboHide task), so that makes me one of those users who want to modify the behaviour just a bit. > If one wants more stuff hidden than it's already done by the task, one > could just add 'gobohide -h /wherever' to their BootUp as well. I'm > all for configurability, but this one doesn't sound like a very > compelling case. I'd rather add an entry to the GoboHide conf file then adding more lines to the BootUp script. The latter looks ugly if one first has "GoboHide start", which hides specified directories, and then there are some more entries with "gobohide -h /foo". Why doesn't this idea sound compelling to you? It's not making things worse, is it? > I was never entirely sold to the userDefinedModules > array either, since one could just write modprobe foo in their BootUp > scripts. I'm not a fan of tasks that amount to running a single > command, they just bloat up the boot process. Oops, I started ranting > offtopically. Sorry. :) > > WRT the gobohide issue specifically, I don't feel strongly either way. What's the difference of probing, say, three modules with userDefinedModules and adding them as three rows in BootUp? It's the same amount of commands, just that the former looks cleaner to me. I think the same arguments goes for GoboHide. -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
-- Lucas powered by /dev/dsp _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
