Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Degert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > please don't answer too quickly; if you think about it a second
> > (in the context of the thread) you will realize that I wrote about
> > syntactically and semantic
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Degert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, i meant you can't prevent the parser to error out on some edited
> > config files, not that it will happen with every edited config file.
>
> config files which
Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Degert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Drake> On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 09:48:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> > > I prefer the a
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> --This might mean that Linuxconf will error out if it can't parse the file,
> >> if you've made private changes to it. That's the tradeoff, you take a risk
> >> that you won't be able to use linuxconf if you privately edit the file. We
> >> will work
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Why can't you ask all the questions first? I am too thnking of
> the kernel image package. I can easily design a framework that
> gathers all the data a priori -- and yes, you have a point;
> Andreas> because the questions depend on th
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was wondering if we have reached some sort of consesus on Linuxconf.
>
> The points that I see are
>
> *Linuxconf can't lose any info.
> --This might mean that Linuxconf will error out if it can't parse the file,
> if you've made private changes to it
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drake> On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 09:48:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>
> >> What is the benefit of keeping packages in an unconfigured
> >> state?
>
> Drake>It's a reminder to me that I need to configure this package still.
>
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
