Re: [exim-dev] RFC: private vs. generic options in routers a…

On 2014-11-23, Andreas Metzler <eximusers@???> wrote:
> On 2014-11-22 Heiko Schlittermann <hs@???> wrote:
> [...]
>> Hm, a configuration file that is better readable is always a gain. A
>> complex configuration is not always read or maintained by an expert.
>
> Hello,
> Well, for me personally distinguishing private router options does not
> increase readability. If I set a option I need to understand what it
> does and why I want it. The information that it is specific to the
> redirect router or would apply to ipliteral router does not interest
> me a lot.
>
> But that is really just me personally, so I do not think it should
> count for much in the discussion.
>
> OTOH I have pretty good idea that renaming the option and dropping the
> old name would cause loads of work for many people in the distribution
> context (Debian).

Debian works mainly with pre-cooked config files, changing the name of
an option would mean reviewing all the packages with "exim" in their
name, applying find-and-repace and setting exim version dependancies
as apropriate. IOW a large number of trivial tasks.

> BTW: Do we currently have router options that do not apply to all
> routers but are shared by at least two of them?

I'm guessing that the ipliteral, iplookup, and dnslookup routers share
some fetures not found in the accept router.

--
umop apisdn