Patrick Ben Koetter:
> > Next, a few examples that are likely to be implemented:
> >
> > postconf -M# service-type ...
> > postconf -M# service-type.service-name ...
> >
> > postconf -MX service-type ...
> > postconf -MX service-type.service-name ...
> >
> > Delete (or comment) out the specified services.
>
> Would it make sense - differing from main.cf behaviour - to revert
> comments in master.cf?
In both cases, I don't understand how that would work.
> > I am contemplating a new class of master.cf operations that operate
> > column-wise. These currently have no main.cf equivalent.
> >
> > postconf -Mu chroot=n inet unix fifo pass
> >
> > Update the "chroot" column to "n" for all services.
>
> Would the new class also allow to edit a _single_ service e.g.:
>
> postconf -Mu chroot=n inet.submission
Of course. A pattern can match one entry or more.
> Should postconf be able/offer to make backup copies before it acts a request
> out?
Should it with main.cf? Should we enourage the use of version control?
> > And finally, a more complicated example:
> >
> > postconf -Me 'text of complete master.cf entry'
> >
> > Replace the specified master.cf service or add a new service.
> > Each postconf(1) command-line argument contains the text
> > of a complete master.cf entry. The new entry is line-wrapped
> > as with "postconf -Mf".
> >
> > This command syntax is consistent with existing "postconf -e"
> > commands, where each postconf(1) command-line argument contains the
> > text of a complete main.cf entry.
>
> In postconf(1) you wrote "-e Edit the main.cf configuration file, and update
> parameter settings ..."
The text is too vague and needs to be updated. What happens in
reality is "replace or add main.cf entry, using the complete entry
given on the postconf command line".
If there is a command to implement THAT FUNCTION for master.cf (add
or replace entry, using the complete entry given on the postconf
command line) then it should use the same -e option.
> I haven't thought this through - you probably have: Wouldn't it be more
> consistent to use only 'e' (as already for main.cf) instead of 'u' and 'e' as
> proposed for master.cf?
"u" replaces a field in master.cf. It has no main.cf equivalent
(replace a word in the middle of a line?) therefore should not use
an option letter that is used for main.cf.
Wietse
