Configuration suggestion...

[Michael H. Warfield]

Hey Julian,

On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 09:13 +0100, Julian Field wrote:

> On 10/08/2009 19:56, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 19:00 +0100, Jules Field wrote:
> >    
> >> I don't quite see what that would achieve that the
> >> upgrade_MailScanner_conf doesn't.
> >> I don't entirely understand your point, sorry.
> >>      
> > 	The point is that upgrade_MailScanner_conf is a PITA.  I typically have
> > to have two screens up and refer back and forth while I've got the
> > instructions from one process in one screen and performing the actions
> > in another.
> >    
> Sorry, I always thought it was rather neat, in that it copies over all 
> your old settings, puts all the comments in the right place and so on. 
> Damn site easier than just having what most packages give you, which is 
> your old file and a new "default unconfigured" file where you have to 
> merge the two by hand to create your new one.

	A lot of packages have addressed that in different ways.

> Adding "include" files means that I need to allow settings to be 
> over-written by later instances of the same setting, and I need to keep 
> track of a whole stack of nested "include" files. Currently it will 
> complain if it sees the same setting twice, but I would have to disable 
> that, which I'm not keen on doing. And in the nested "include" file 
> handling, I've got to do loop detection and other nasties so you can't 
> trivially break it.

	True.

> Most sensible people who have multiple servers always document upgrade 
> instructions like this so you can just follow some noddy guide you wrote 
> rather than trying to be sure you didn't miss anything each time when 
> you get distracted by the phone ringing in the middle of it all. And you 
> just cut and paste your instructions :-)

	Hmmm...  Can I have some of those sensible people to work in our IT
departments?  They seem to be rather scarce.  At least around here.
Only problem is that I would probably have a hard time getting them
hired...

	: - Snip...

> I'm not against you or anything like that, I just wanted to present my 
> side of the situation too, to see what you think. It's not only your 
> opinion that matters, I need input from others before I change any of 
> this too.

	Oh, exactly!  That's why I said "suggestion" and "just a thought".  I
didn't see anything in the archives and I couldn't tell if any of this
had been considered before or what the reasoning was.  I was interested
in prompting a discussion.  And I got that nicely.  Some of the other
comments were excellent alternatives that I've also seen.  I was rather
surprised to see a solution pop out of the woodwork.

> Implementing nested include files is non-trivial.
> > 	Mike

	: - Snip

	I look forward to playing with the new stuff.

> Jules
> 
> -- 
> Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
> www.MailScanner.info
> Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
> 
> Need help customising MailScanner?
> Contact me!
> Need help fixing or optimising your systems?
> Contact me!
> Need help getting you started solving new requirements from your boss?
> Contact me!
> 
> PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
> Follow me at twitter.com/JulesFM and twitter.com/MailScanner
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

	Regards,
	Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20090811/ab9d97e3/attachment.bin