[pacman-dev] Conf file mis-configuration by users

[Dan McGee]

On Jan 11, 2008 10:51 AM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Travis Willard wrote:
> > http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=315809#p315809
> >
> > I see this happening all the time - people want to enable a repo, ONLY
> > uncomment the Include line, then complain when it doesn't work.  I
> > know it's PEBKAC, but can anyone think of a way we could change the
> > conf file to decrease the amount of times this happens?
> >
> > Will an additional comment actually help?  Is there a better way to
> > get this point across, say reorganization of the file?
> >
>
> I agree, this issue is happening all the time. it's unbelievable.
> To be honest, this issue always reminds me of your sync / local split
> proposal (its goal was also limiting pebkac), so I was counting on you
> :) I already tried to think about reoganizing the file but didn't come
> up with anything.

We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.

> > I'd make a patch for the conf file with a super comment warning
> > against this, but I noticed all repo configuration was removed from
> > pacman.conf in the pacman.git repo - maybe this discussion doesn't
> > even belong on the pacman-dev list anymore?  :P
> >
>
> Well, afaik the pacman package is on topic here, so even if the conf
> file is moved from the git repo to the package, this discussion still
> belongs here. You can always just attach the whole file.
> But I should rather let Dan answer since he knows better.

Comment is not a bad idea, although I just shake my head every time I
see these threads. Editors do have syntax highlighting too, which
makes this more obvious. I guess firing up the Gnome text editor as
root probably doesn't though. :)

-Dan