access: in readers.conf

[Jeffrey M. Vinocur]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Jeffrey M Vinocur <jeff at litech.org> writes:
> 
> > Why don't we remove access: in INN 2.4?  The R and P functionality is
> > already available with read:/post:, and it should be quite trivial to
> > provide all the other parts of access: with individual boolean flags.
> 
> I wouldn't mind, although I also wouldn't mind waiting for 2.5.  I don't
> really have a strong opinion either way.  

I don't either, except that if it would be an actual benefit to people, it 
seems a shame to make them wait (how long are we predicting until 2.5?).


> It's been broken that way for all of 2.3 and this is the first time I
> recall someone mentioning it, so it's apparently not a frequently
> noticed bug.

Oh, certainly not.  I don't care about the bug (except for the general
icky feeling that known-but-not-being-fixed have), but there are a few
recurrent issues from access: that would also go away.  


> We're hopefully going to be ripping out the current readers.conf parser
> entirely for 2.5, so I'm not sure if it's worth people having to think
> about this when upgrading to 2.4 when they're going to have to think about
> configuration changes again in 2.5.  At the least, we definitely should do
> this when upgrading the parser.

Hmm, true.


> innupgrade has the ability to run on any file with an option to tell it
> what style of file it is, so that should be okay.  

Oh I know.  I just felt obligated to point out that even though the
changes could be automated in principle, we can't actually make it
invisible to the users because of the proliferation of readers.conf files.


-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org