Mike Kupfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that software outside of ON should not rely on the current
> libcmd.
>
> And this probably doesn't need to be said, but just so we're all on the
> same page: if the current libcmd goes away, some sort of library should
> take its place. Rewriting a
Mike Kupfer wrote:
"Roland" == Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roland> Note: [libcmd] should not be used if possible. I have plans for it -
Roland> and I am not sure whether the current API will surive them
I agree that software outside of ON should not rely on the current
libcmd.
T
> "Roland" == Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roland> Note: [libcmd] should not be used if possible. I have plans for it -
Roland> and I am not sure whether the current API will surive them
I agree that software outside of ON should not rely on the current
libcmd.
And this probably
Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > why not having a lib function that would help parsing/reading/writing
> > > such a file ?
> >
> > There actually is an undocumented/private library much like that already for
> > reading the files in that format in /etc/default - libcmd.
> > http://c
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Yann POUPET wrote:
> > Since many (most ?) config files may be something like :
> >
> > # some comments
> > param1 = arg1
> > param2 = arg2
> > param3 = arg3
> > # another comment
> > param4 = arg4
> >
> > why not having a lib function that would help parsing/reading/writi
