On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM, David F. Skoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Colin Alston wrote: > > > Still, no one has managed to answer just *why* in a simple key-value > > configuration file with no option dependence has to refuse to start > > when it encounters an unknown option. > > Well, there are two cases: > > 1) A completely unknown option: In this case, I agree that Clam should > abort after writing errors to stderr and syslog. A completely unknown > option indicates a serious problem; the configuration file could never > have been valid. > Why? Ignore it and move to next one. I can't understand why an unknown option would prevent a service to start. > > 2) An option from an earlier version that has been removed. In this case, > Clam should warn to stderr and syslog, but still continue. In this way, > a previously-valid config file doesn't instantly become invalid. > Warn and continue loading, ignoring that option or use a new default value. Let's suppose this is a brand-new install. There will be default values, right? At least you have a service running again after upgrade. > > I suspect the Clam developers do it the way they do to force users to > look at (and think about) their configuration files. This is a laudable > goal, but really interferes with usability and creates problems where there > need not be any. So I ask the developers (and I'd appreciate an official > response): Will you please consider: > > Version N: Accept option Foo > Version N+1: Warn about obsolete option Foo > Version N+2: Reject option Foo and abort > > Where "N" is a major version. > I would prefer simple things as said above. There is no reason to do this, IMO. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
