Takayuki Tsunakawa wrote:
> From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>
>
>> Meeting FHS requirements is no bad thing, though. And the ability to
>> include a common configuration set in multiple instances is surely
>> useful to a number of people. After all, you aren't forced to use
>>
> these
>
>> facilities - I typically don't.
>>
>
> Thank you, Andrew-san.
> What I want to know is a more concreet thing.
>
> How useful are those facilities to what kind of users in what cases?
> Is there a reason why users in the real world positively use those
> facilities?
>
>
If you want to find out about usage patterns this is probably not the
best place to survey users - the hackers are not very representative of
users in general. I have a sneaking suspicion that include directives
are not used a whole lot, but alternative file locations are much more
widely used.
My off-the-cuff advice about your tool would be to process any include
directives when reading the config file, but initially just write out
new settings to the top level file (at the end, so they don't get
overridden by the includes).
cheers
andrew
