On Saturday 17 November 2007 02:06, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:11:57PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > > prominently display the actual meaning of the word being set. The only > > reason to make the list binary is to force everyone to use the > > (basically database technology) tool to manipulate the keywords, thus > > stopping folks from misconstruing the meanings. That's my only reason > > for that, and there are certainly other ways to go about it, so as long > > as whatever is suggested requires folks to see the commonly accepted > > definition when they set the list, I don't care how it's done. The list > > could as easily be encrypted, I guess, that would also cause the same > > work flow, in somewhat the same reasoning as we use for forcing folks to > > use "vipw" to change the pasword list.
I haven't read the discussion on -ports, but I hope the rest of your (Chuck Robey's) arguments are better founded than this one. No-one forces anyone to use vipw(8). You can, for example, edit /etc/master.passwd or a copy of it with any editor you like, and then run pwd_mkdb(8) to install your changes. vipw just gives you file locking (plus sanity checks and an automatic call to pwd_mkdb). > I think "forcing" anyone to anything is a *bad idea*. Period. You're > talking about placing arbitrary limits on what the user can see if he or > she wants to understand what's going on "under the hood". With that kind > of treatment, I would never have learned as much about FreeBSD as I know > as quickly as I did. I agree. > I, for one, would probably refuse to use such a system once I learned > enough about the basics to want to know what it's doing. The moment I > figured out it was designed specifically to obscure some aspect of its > operation from the user, I'd look for something else to use instead. > There are very good reasons for this -- reasons like security, curiosity, > and just plain good manners. > > > Please consider that we'll get another chance to argue this out when I > > have the software ready, so we don't need to settle it now. I don't > > want this to continue to pollute the -questions list. I'm not at all sure what problem you're trying to solve here. If I know I need to change the defaults on a port, I generally know why and what the implications are; if I don't, the defaults are generally what I need anyway. As far as I can see, you want to remove a deal of flexibility from the ports system, in favour of introducing a compulsory scheme of configuration hints. You say you want to move ports configuration from port install time to system compile time - which in itself is, in my view, an unrealistic objective: it will break the first time a new port has an option which can't be determined on the basis of an existing keyword. Not only that, but it means that as soon as I install a single port (Perl, for example), I would have to run the complete ports-tree configuration routine. I'm sorry to leap on board and prolong the agony at this late stage, but I wanted to add another datum point, particularly given the rather dismissive > > I personally felt we'd sufficiently discussed this to death, but > > now there's 2 different folks who want to tear it apart some more. > > If you're bored of this, tell me, and I will drag these folks > > either into private discussions, or maybe onto the ports list. > > Tell me if you've heard enough of this ..... Jonathan _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
