* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I think it'd be reasonable to refuse starting if the config is *known > broken* (such as containing lines that are unparseable, or that contain > completely invalid tokens), whereas you'd start if they just contain > things that are "probably wrong". But picking from your previous > examples of "more advanced checks", there are lots of cases where > things like overlapping CIDR address ranges are perfectly valid, so I > don't think we could even throw a warning for that - unless there's a > separate flag to enable/disable warnings for such a thing.
Agreed. Making sure the config can parse is different from parsable but
non-sensible. It's ridiculously easy to mistakenly add a line w/ a
single character on it or something equally bad when saving a file
that's being modified by hand. That's a simple check that should be
done on re-hup and the broken config shouldn't be put in place.
I certainly agree that we should *also* have a way to just check the
config, so that can be built into init scripts and whatnot. I don't
think having one precludes having the other, and I'm pretty confident we
could find a way to not duplicate the code and have things be clean.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
