Alternative format for the configuration file

[Otavio Salvador]

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=

|| On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:27:15 +0200
|| Free Ekanayaka <free@agnula.org> wrote: 

fe> Are variable configuration keywords  really necessary? Actually  I did
fe> not  realised that the  "_sarge"  suffix was  refering to  the [sarge]
fe> section until I read the above lines (well I guess  it in some part of
fe> my brain, but it's a  little bit unusual  for configuration files so I
fe> dropped that thought).

This is to provide a filter for a specific backend while merging it.

fe> I don't know what the filter_sarge keyword  is supposed to do exactly,
fe> but I   think it can be   replaced by static   keyword,  like filter =
fe> sarge:section:base or something similar.

fe> Whatever   config format we  choose,   IMHO we  should avoid  variable
fe> keywords.

I don't see a good scheme to do it.

fe> Yes, I didn't  claim compatibility with other  APT tools. It's just to
fe> have a consistent format between them.

fe> Regarding simplicity, I  think there  is  room for  improvement in the
fe> schema I proposed,  however   I  think  that good  documentation   and
fe> meaningful comments can make everybody happy.

hehe

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

--=-=-=--
--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFBBqjdLqiZQEml+FURArOeAJwOSRt9ttneTBCSsJHwZsl/b13W4ACeL4Ij
WOd5jj/mTnai+uw/pQCj4F4=
=jbPi
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--