On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 18:11, Matt Schalit wrote:
> CONFIG-DB PROPOSALS
> 1. flat-db
> 2. api-flat-db
> 3. api-xml-db
> 4. api-binary-db
> 5. template-api-xml-db
Everyone,
The proposals by Chad and Eric are now in CVS.
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.c
On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 14:19, Matt Schalit wrote:
>
>
> Chad Carr wrote:
>
>
> > May I suggest that the config-db be maintained as a "config-tree," with
> > the root at /leaf-cdb (or something shallow like that) and keys may be
> > nested as deeply as needed by creating directory levels. I.e. y
Chad Carr wrote:
May I suggest that the config-db be maintained as a "config-tree," with
the root at /leaf-cdb (or something shallow like that) and keys may be
nested as deeply as needed by creating directory levels. I.e. you could
make the key
interfaces/eth0/ipaddr
like this:
echo -n "17
I thought I should add a couple of comments. There's a lot of this
discussion that's basically way beyond me, but welll... :)
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 06:57:24PM -0600, Lynn Avants wrote:
> The biggest problem IMHO with a flat-db would be the ability to
> hand-edit the file(s). If no comments or de
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:57:24 -0600
"Lynn Avants" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One of these???
> name = value
> name value
> name:value
> name.value
> name = value #descript
>
I realize of course that I am quite late to this discussion, and oddly
more vocal lately than I have been, but it only
On Monday 03 February 2003 02:41 pm, Matt Schalit wrote:
> I would suggest letting people develop at will, at their own speed,
> as has been the history of projects here, and let the better ideas
> prevail.
>
> I feel positively about a roadmap, but don't feel it's "absolutely
> necessary." I *am*
Lynn Avants wrote:
On Sunday 02 February 2003 08:11 pm, Matt Schalit wrote:
I) central config-db
II) package system
III) gui admin program
That looks correct to me. A roadmap is absolutely necessary.
I would suggest letting people develop at will, at their own speed,
as has
On Sunday 02 February 2003 08:11 pm, Matt Schalit wrote:
> I) central config-db
>II) package system
> III) gui admin program
>
>
>
> I can be done alone, even with the current lrcfg and lrpkg.
> II is dependant on I being done.
> III is dependant on II.
>
>
> Can we concur on the abov
Here's my attempt to summarize the project ideas offered recently,
because I feel there are enough that some good ones might get lost:
If I left any out, please add them in!!
There are 3 general projects:
I) central config-db
II) packa
