Hi,

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Stephan Kulow wrote:

> pbrown@redhat.com wrote:
> > 
> > Here's a point I've been meaning to throw out for awhile.
> > 
> > I know we all hate the concept of a binary registry / database being the
> > permanent on-disk store for configuration information.  But the current
> > concept of using flat text files has one fundamental problem -- upgrades.
> > Yup, that's right, upgrading to a newer version of a piece of software is
> > a major pain in the ass, because if the software comes with a new config
> > file, you have one of two choices:
> > 
> > 1. replace the existing configuration file.
> > 2. rename the new config file, and leave it up to the user/administrator
> >    to replace the existing config file.
> > 
> > What are we really lacking here?  MERGING technology.  It is simply too
> > difficult to merge two different ascii configuration files.  Even if all
> > you want to do is add "new" entries, and not change existing ones, it's a
> > pain in the ass, and currently unfeasible.
> > 
> > Does anyone have any suggestions in this area?  This is going to just
> > become a larger problem as time goes by.  A database approach solves many
> > of the issues, but we have passed on that.
> > 
> I can't see how a binary registry helps here. In any way you would have
> to register what the user wrote and what the application wrote. But our
> mechanism with global and local entries should be fine enough. As long
> as the user file only writes changes, replacing the global file should
> be all that's needed for an update.

But changes of the sysadmin are lost ....

bye
torben

> Greetings, Stephan
> 
> -- 
> As long as Linux remains a religion of freeware fanatics,
> Microsoft have nothing to worry about.  
>                        By Michael Surkan, PC Week Online
> 
>