On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 06:00:34PM -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> lee wrote:
> > Exim4 is another example. I can configure it easily bypassing the
> > automatic configuration, but I'm unable to configure it using the
> > auomatic configuration.
>
> Well, you can't, but other people can (at l
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 05:10:06PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Sunday 07 December 2008, lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re:
> Better support for merging local and upstream (was: Erase cache, clean
> registry in Linux)':
> >On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at
On Tuesday 2008 December 09 13:33:19 lee wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 08:24:45PM -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>> From: lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> > When a program uses a number of different configuration files, it's
>> > much more difficult for the administrator to configure it.
>>
>> I
lee wrote:
> Exim4 is another example. I can configure it easily bypassing the
> automatic configuration, but I'm unable to configure it using the
> auomatic configuration.
Well, you can't, but other people can (at least one, ie, me). It's a
matter of preference, and Debian respects that.
> Well,
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 08:24:45PM -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> From: lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > When a program uses a number of different configuration files, it's
> > much more difficult for the administrator to configure it.
>
> I'd say it's a matter of preference. I like exim's split
>> >>> Q: How are we going to do that?
>> >>> A: It's not possible in general.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it is, since you can always fall back on the current code in
>> >> those cases where you don't know how else to do it.
>> >
>> > No, it's not.
>> > Falling back to the old behavior (not merging chan
On Sunday 07 December 2008, lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re:
Better support for merging local and upstream (was: Erase cache, clean
registry in Linux)':
>On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 03:42:42AM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> On Saturday 2008 December 06 02:0
From: lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> When a program uses a number of different configuration files, it's
> much more difficult for the administrator to configure it.
I'd say it's a matter of preference. I like exim's split configuration, it
makes upgrades easier as I only have to deal with the parts t
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 03:42:42AM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Saturday 2008 December 06 02:03, lee wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:45:28AM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > I disagree with this. It should be possible to establish "hooks" so that
> > > the administrato
On Saturday 2008 December 06 02:03, lee wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:45:28AM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > On Friday 2008 December 05 23:02, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > When an upgrade is installed, local changes *have* to be merged with
> > > the changes brought in from the upgra
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:45:28AM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Friday 2008 December 05 23:02, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > When an upgrade is installed, local changes *have* to be merged with the
> > changes brought in from the upgrade. That's just an unvoidable need.
>
> I disagree wi
On Friday 2008 December 05 23:02, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>> Q: How are we going to do that?
> >>> A: It's not possible in general.
> >>
> >> Of course it is, since you can always fall back on the current code in
> >> those cases where you don't know how else to do it.
> >
> > No, it's not.
> > Fa
>>> Q: How are we going to do that?
>>> A: It's not possible in general.
>> Of course it is, since you can always fall back on the current code in
>> those cases where you don't know how else to do it.
> No, it's not.
> Falling back to the old behavior (not merging changes) is not a technique
> for
13 matches
Mail list logo
