On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There have been bits of persistent state that people wanted to store
for setup. I'm proposing an Xdefaults-style setup.cfg in
/etc/setup. If we compile a
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There have been bits of persistent state that people wanted to
store for setup. I'm proposing an Xdefaults-style setup.cfg in
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There have been bits of persistent state that people wanted to
store for setup. I'm
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There have been bits of persistent state that people wanted to
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 03:54, Max Bowsher wrote:
Either we disallow comments, or we keep the order, IMO.
^^^
My vote.
Ok, we are starting down a rabbit hole.
Whomever puts the time in can decide whether it's user editable or not.
I've already listed the
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 07:39, Robert Collins wrote:
I'll add another incentive: I'll accept 'progress' patches, that
refactor the code to use the emerging framework, as long as the current
*behaviour* doesn't change. (i.e. we still use last-mirror etc).
The first patch that starts to use
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max Bowsher
Sent: Sun, Mar 09, 2003 8:43a
To: John Morrison; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: /etc/setup/setup.cfg ?
John Morrison wrote:
BTW, apart from colours, what would you store? Whether
linda w (cyg) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max Bowsher
Sent: Sun, Mar 09, 2003 8:43a
To: John Morrison; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: /etc/setup/setup.cfg ?
John Morrison wrote:
BTW, apart from colours, what would you
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:38:57 - Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There have been bits of persistent state that people wanted to store
for setup. I'm proposing an Xdefaults-style setup.cfg in /etc/setup.
If we compile a list of things to go in there, I could
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:08, Michael A Chase wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:38:57 - Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There have been bits of persistent state that people wanted to store
for setup. I'm proposing an Xdefaults-style setup.cfg in /etc/setup.
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 07:49:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Also, I'd prefer /etc/setup.rc rather that /etc/setup/setup.cfg.
Wouldn't /etc/setuprc be somewhat more consistent with existing unix
practices?
Sure. I'm happy with that
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There have been bits of persistent state that people wanted to store
for setup. I'm proposing an Xdefaults-style setup.cfg in /etc/setup.
If we compile a list of things to go in there, I could write a parser
for it (I don't
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 07:49:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Also, I'd prefer /etc/setup.rc rather that /etc/setup/setup.cfg.
Wouldn't /etc/setuprc be somewhat more consistent with existing unix
practices?
Sure. I'm happy
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
On Mon, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:49:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Also, I'd prefer /etc/setup.rc rather that /etc/setup/setup.cfg.
Wouldn't /etc/setuprc be somewhat more
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
On Mon, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:49:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Also, I'd prefer /etc/setup.rc rather that /etc/setup/setup.cfg.
Wouldn't /etc/setuprc be somewhat more
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 07:49:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Also, I'd prefer /etc/setup.rc rather that /etc/setup/setup.cfg.
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 13:11, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
How about [/etc/]setup.conf ? it follows the (other) unix convention of
configuration file naming.
Thank you. That works for everyone I think.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:23:06PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 13:11, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
How about [/etc/]setup.conf ? it follows the (other) unix convention
of configuration file naming.
Thank you. That works for everyone I think.
Yup.
cgf
18 matches
Mail list logo
