Michael H. Warfield
mhw at WittsEnd.com
Tue Aug 11 15:32:19 IST 2009
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.
> 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
: - 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.
> Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
> 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.
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
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20090811/ab9d97e3/attachment.bin
More information about the MailScanner