On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Eric Rostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > If any Op (or poor user) adds an option like > > PleaseClamAVCleanInfectedFilesForMe yes > > and expects it to work, are you really sure that the software should not > > ignore this? > > Yes. What happens if he means to type "ScanRAR" but makes a typo and > enters "ScnaRAR". If it ignores the entry, then the RAR isn't scanned > according to their wishes/desires. That is, the software acts in a > way that isn't expected. > A simple test would do, in this case. But your example is due to a different situation. If you have a running system and do an upgrade, no typo will happen. But an unknown option could. If you are enabling a new feature a typo can be happen and this is up to OP to solve this. Both cases in a parsing routine IS an unknown option. What is really needed is to separate unknown from obsolete and I just saw an example of this in a patch under another thread in this list. > > > I see no difference from mine example to yours, because one should > > understand at minimum which options are availble before adding one he > > *thinks* exists. > > What about a simple typo? > There is no type in upgrades. Just when OP is enabling a new feature. A responsible OP should also test the new feature. Agree? _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
