On Sat, 23 Sept 2023 at 08:03, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: <snip> > This seems rather restrictive, adds unnecessary redundancy, and would > make it hard to type an entry without the aid of special tools. > > Also, there are other files like use.mask which probably shouldn't have > a completely different format. Their entries often have the author/date > line plus a one line comment which says all that is needed. Adding > massive header blocks there would be excessive. > > IMHO Arthur's original proposal was fine. Let's not over-complicate > things. > > Ulrich
I'm confused, you're against adding "massive header blocks" but you're fine with Arthur's 9 line entry but not my 8 line one. My idea was a stop gap to add something easily parsed once the comments are stripped but keeping the comments in place currently for backwards compatibility. Since parsing was part of the OP it made sense to me to suggest an "already existing made for humans to read/write while tools can already parse it" structure. What special tools do you think are needed to write it? I wrote the above in Kate after double checking the configparser docs. A standard template would be trivial. -- Ninpo
