Alternative format for the configuration file

[Nathaniel L. Budin]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Free Ekanayaka wrote:

> IMHO this  further filtering  is a  confusing.  I would  move  all the
> filtering statements in the merge section,  and use the remote backend
> as unfiltered  APT sources, that define  the set of  all the available
> packages.

This would remove important features as well as rendering one of the 
biggest use cases of this tool unusable: partial mirroring (hence the 
name).

> Let me add that  in this case the  configuration file is not a  simple
> flat list of variables, that defines paths, options, switches etc, but
> it's rather similar  to a tiny programming language,  used to build up
> your CDD using wide APT pools as raw bricks. 
> 
> [rest of explanation snipped]

OK, Free, let me square with you.  If you want me to sit down and throw 
away the last 3 weeks or so of work on the new configuration format, 
you're going to have to give me a better reason than "this other format is 
prettier".  The current (newly rewritten) config format isn't the best 
possible one, I agree, but it's very flexible, very easy to read, and does 
everything we need out of it.

If you were to show me a grave problem with the current format, then I'd 
consider throwing it away and doing something different.  As it is, I 
don't see a good reason to rewrite this code.  If YOU want to sit down and 
rewrite it, rather than just telling me to do it, that's great, and that's 
what Free Software is all about, and we'll talk about it when you've got 
patches ready that pass the test suite. :-D

As it is, I'd rather get to work on the actual functionality of this 
program, instead of quibbling about details of the (IMO, rather 
superficial) config format it uses.

Cheers,
Nat