On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:36:11AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Yes, this means some work for the initial time to set it up,
> :but in the medium term makes handling e.g. of users and user stuff
> :much easier, because there is only one place to add the necessary
> :magic for updates -- the script.
> :
> :Joerg
>
> This seems like massive overkill to me. While I don't mind the idea
> of using a database, I don't see a major necessity for it either.
> Eventually I would like to go to a services model for most of these
> files anyway (the CAPS stuff that hasn't been touched in a while).
> In the mean time it seem far more straightforward just to extend
> the existing code to checking two files instead of one using a
> configuration model that everyone is already familiar with.
But it doesn't the fix the problem of default config files which might
be changed [or _are_ normally changed by the user]. Implementing
merging seems even more a hack than this "overkill". A lot of admins
use CVS or so to manage config files, which is even more overkill.
Joerg