On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 19:29 -0800, Shane Stixrud wrote: > What would it take to convince you? > > The limitations around automating/scripting system changes without > replacing whole config files is one problem. How about the differing > syntax between most applications without a technical need, some of which > have horrid syntax. The impracticality of programs sharing configuration > elements with each other without each application being aware of every > other applications magic syntax. The impossibility of having an automated > system for saving and reverting changes without saving whole config files > after every change and then figuring out what changed and why. Or how > about the fact developing configuration guis/tools is many orders of > magnitude more difficult when their is no consistent config file standard? Look at Debian if you want to see how config files should be handled. Judicious use of conf.d type directories goes a long way. Fedora's own /etc/sysconfig hierarchy is a good example of how config files can be brain dead simple, hand editable and GUI configurable.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part