Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:47:38PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thursday 17 April 2003 02:32, Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 20:21, Chris Hanson wrote: > > > > I'd rather fix this properly; what you suggest is a workaround. What > > > > I consider a proper fix is to redefine the configuration files so that > > > > they can be parsed. I have learned, the hard way, that using shell > > > > scripts for configuration files is a bad idea. > > > > > > That's true, it's definitely a workaround. The way I did it in > > > fontconfig is the way I think it should be done in packages which can't > > > (or can't easily) losslessly parse their configuration files. > > > > OTOH, xml config files (like fontconfig's config) could be losslessly > > parsed > > through xslt processing... > > Much like any other config file can be losslessly parsed by processing > them. That's not really very helpful.
Yes, but with a standard format such as XML, you don't have to write your own code to parse or generate them. On the other hand, I don't think we really want package configuration scripts to require XML tools, do we? Craig
pgpQykjQguk42.pgp
Description: PGP signature
