Robert Watson wrote:
>
> So this is actually just a general response to the whole thing--one of the
> things I actually dislike about rc.conf is its flexibility: the user can
> put anything script-wise they like into it. My temptation would be to
> reduce the flexibility: to have a simple name:value configuration file
> (with appropriate extensions for lists, quoted strings, etc) that is
> guaranteed to be readable by any third-party (or even first-party :)
> automated configuration programs. Depending on your mood, the name field
> could even be MIB-like (boot.runaway: yes).
>
> It just seems like sometimes scripts give too much flexibility :-); rather
> than providing useful increased functionality, they improve the chances
> that the user will screw themselves by taking advantage of it in ways that
> confuse automated utilities such as configuration checkers, managers, etc.
Well, the idea behind loader.conf is *reducing* flexibility, in a
way... :-) There are features in it that make it that still gives a
lot of flexibility, to be able to deal with unexpected situations.
But loader.conf syntax is <variable>="<value>", with # treated like
bourne shell do.
The loader.rc file contains commands in a very flexible language,
making it virtually impossible for automated tools to modify it. So,
loader.conf.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
d...@newsguy.com
d...@freebsd.org
"FreeBSD is Yoda, Linux is Luke Skywalker."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
