So I got to prototyping this, just to play around with it and see what
worked. Then I was reading a thread on debian-mentors about Apache
configuration, and I remembered how much of a pain that is currently. It
occurred to me that a merging system could perhaps be used to make this
sane. I'd lik
So I got to prototyping this, just to play around with it and see what
worked. Then I was reading a thread on debian-mentors about Apache
configuration, and I remembered how much of a pain that is currently. It
occurred to me that a merging system could perhaps be used to make this
sane. I'd lik
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:54:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:10:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I don't think that existing .config handling necessarily needs to change
> > at this point, unless we want to provide a standard way to suppress all
> > attempts
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:54:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:10:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I don't think that existing .config handling necessarily needs to change
> > at this point, unless we want to provide a standard way to suppress all
> > attempts
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> * hates and fears text config files and will not touch them
> * will read and edit a text config file
> But there is such a third group:
> * will edit a text config file, but only given very precise and explicit
> instructions -- will not read
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> * hates and fears text config files and will not touch them
> * will read and edit a text config file
> But there is such a third group:
> * will edit a text config file, but only given very precise and explicit
> instructions -- will not read
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:10:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:02:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Matt, I'd be more than happy to use xfree86 in unstable as a testbed for
> > your proposal. If you agree, let's migrate this subthread over to
> > debian-x.
>
>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:10:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:02:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Matt, I'd be more than happy to use xfree86 in unstable as a testbed for
> > your proposal. If you agree, let's migrate this subthread over to
> > debian-x.
>
>
Hi,
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 10:09:58PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Time for a third opinion: I think your setup circumvents the problem
>> (parsing XF86Config) _very_ nicely with little overhead. It allows me
>> to custo
Hi,
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 10:09:58PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Time for a third opinion: I think your setup circumvents the problem
>> (parsing XF86Config) _very_ nicely with little overhead. It allows me
>> to custo
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 12:19:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 2. It might be interesting to develop either colorized vim or emacs
> > modes that were invoked when editing only-partially-editable files, such
> > that the "hands-off" part appeared, say, in some distinct color.
>
> A ni
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:26:48AM -0400, Susan Kleinmann wrote:
> Here are two peripherally related suggestions that might help:
>
> 1. There is at least one other package that has a do-not-configure-here
> component to its file: grub. I wonder if it might be possible to find
> some commonaliti
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 12:19:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 2. It might be interesting to develop either colorized vim or emacs
> > modes that were invoked when editing only-partially-editable files, such
> > that the "hands-off" part appeared, say, in some distinct color.
>
> A ni
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:26:48AM -0400, Susan Kleinmann wrote:
> Here are two peripherally related suggestions that might help:
>
> 1. There is at least one other package that has a do-not-configure-here
> component to its file: grub. I wonder if it might be possible to find
> some commonaliti
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:26:48AM -0400, Susan Kleinmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You can tell people to put their shit outside the debconf area, but they
> > won't.
>
> Here are two peripherally related suggestions that might he
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You can tell people to put their shit outside the debconf area, but they
> won't.
Here are two peripherally related suggestions that might help:
1. There is at least one other package that has a do-not-configure-here
c
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:26:48AM -0400, Susan Kleinmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You can tell people to put their shit outside the debconf area, but they
> > won't.
>
> Here are two peripherally related suggestions that might he
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You can tell people to put their shit outside the debconf area, but they
> won't.
Here are two peripherally related suggestions that might help:
1. There is at least one other package that has a do-not-configure-here
c
> They. Will. Not. Read.
Maybe there will be somewhat less complains from those who don't read, if
debconf stuff will calculate and store a checksum of autogenerated part of
the file, and later don't touch it (or give extra warnings before touching)
if the checksum does not match.
> They. Will. Not. Read.
Maybe there will be somewhat less complains from those who don't read, if
debconf stuff will calculate and store a checksum of autogenerated part of
the file, and later don't touch it (or give extra warnings before touching)
if the checksum does not match.
--
To U
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:02:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Yes, now that I've written this mail, I've pretty much made up my mind.
> I like your idea. If the user dicks with the autogenerated file, we
> slam on the brakes and toss him into the manual configuration ghetto
> where he belon
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:02:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Yes, now that I've written this mail, I've pretty much made up my mind.
> I like your idea. If the user dicks with the autogenerated file, we
> slam on the brakes and toss him into the manual configuration ghetto
> where he belon
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 10:09:58PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Time for a third opinion: I think your setup circumvents the problem
> (parsing XF86Config) _very_ nicely with little overhead. It allows me
> to customize any section I want while still letting debconf handle the
> rest. Basically
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 10:09:58PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Time for a third opinion: I think your setup circumvents the problem
> (parsing XF86Config) _very_ nicely with little overhead. It allows me
> to customize any section I want while still letting debconf handle the
> rest. Basically
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 06:00:48PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> As I said, I am suggesting we mimick the conffile mechanism. conffiles are
> not parsed, but their modification is noticed. My proposed system would not
> prevent the user from using the menu-driven configuration; it would simple
>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 06:00:48PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> As I said, I am suggesting we mimick the conffile mechanism. conffiles are
> not parsed, but their modification is noticed. My proposed system would not
> prevent the user from using the menu-driven configuration; it would simple
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
