Alternative format for the configuration file

[Otavio Salvador]

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

--=-=-=

|| On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:33:24 -0400 (EDT)
|| "Nathaniel L. Budin" <natb@brandeis.edu> wrote: 

nlb> 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.

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

Sure. We can't remove this feature.

>> 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]

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

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

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

Folks, please calm down ;-)

Currently code is very modular end then which part does exactly what
this should do. Config module does it and does a good job.

I don't have problems with current configuration file format neither
with the proposed format. If you (Free) want try to code it, please,
go ahead and if this doesn't remove any needed feature this will be
accepted. I don't see any other way to deal with the tool need to
provide filters against backends in merge backend without use variable
options so if you solve this problem you can change the configuration
file.

IMHO, we have more serious problems to deal like class layout and
finish a initial version of this tool. We need work together to give
all needed code ASAP and have a good tool to use.

If this is not perfect, no problem, we always can release a new
version changing what is need.

-- 
        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/>

iD8DBQFBB6LYLqiZQEml+FURAs6xAJ9i2DDk1wdUBB2VjMHWR0LUrdLEVQCgkHWC
LLSLedTYtDHHmhAoiuibSTQ=
=e60q
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--