New repository configuration ponderings

[Gary L. Greene Jr.]

On Tuesday 30 May 2006 02:32 pm, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Most people which are ranting against xml only rant at it because they
> > are used to using M$-ish config files (similar to yum's), or because
> > they don't want packages to ever change and to stick to "old time
> > practice forever", no matter how broken it is.
>
> Most people which are ranting in favor of xml ignore the people that
> prefer simple M$-ish style config files.
>
> BTW the M$-ish style config files are native to python and just easy to
> implement (and easy on the eyes for users).
>
> > > Oh and btw, all this has little to do with the original proposal of
> > > making repository configuration use apt configuration engine instead of
> > > using another cumbersome and very limited file format (sources.list).
> >
> > Yes, that's another issue. I never understood why sources.list (and
> > vendors.list) applies a different file format than apt.conf, rsp. why
> > sources.list aren't treated as #include files to apt.conf.
>
> Well, I've been wondering by many other decisions that the apt-developers
> made so I'm no longer surprised. In fact I think apt was being developed
> by a different team every 2 weeks. :)
>
> (btw pinning was also a missed opportunity)
>
> Kind regards,
> --   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
> [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
> _______________________________________________
> apt-rpm mailing list
> apt-rpm at lists.laiskiainen.org
> http://lists.laiskiainen.org/listinfo.cgi/apt-rpm-laiskiainen.org

The main reason for the apt.conf format is admittedly historical. The Format 
of it is from when apt was first prototyped it was written in perl, and not 
C/C++. This made the config format perfect since it would be handled as 
though it were nothing more than just more perl code.

While the format of the configuration is not XML, I would have to agree with 
Dag and Panu that it is more readable.

Gary

PS. if I were the one doing the configuration I would have gone with an INI 
format, but I'm a KDE nut, so.....