Re: Does `@include' equivalent to `include'?

[Nicolas François <nekral lists gmail com>]

Hello,

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 06:03:12PM -0700, shaul Karl wrote:
>   For the record, http://bugs.debian.org/474291 claims
> that include is not equivalent to @include. Since I
> don't know what the differences are, I can't comment
> on the assertion below about the equivalence for all
> the stacks and not bringing anything new or really
> useful.

The syntax for include and @include differ.

In a /etc/pam.d file, the syntax of a line is:
    <type> <control> <module-path> <module-arguments>

  include is used as a <control>

  @include is used as a <type>


Then the semantic is also different:

  include:
    include all lines of given type from the configuration file specified as
    an argument to this control.

  @include:
    parse a given file at the given location of the /etc/pam.d file

-- 
Nekral