[Lxc-users] [PATCH] ignore non-lxc configuration line

[Brian K. White]

On 5/14/2011 9:20 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting David Serrano (dserrano5 at gmail.com):
>> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 00:15, Serge Hallyn<serge.hallyn at canonical.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm curious, whatcha got in mind?
>>
>> I don't think you have to have something in mind to implement this.
>> Just that old motto "Be lenient in what you accept" :).
>
> So if I type 'lcx.' instead of 'lxc.', as I often do, it'll silently
> ignore it?  No, that's a bad idea.
>
> In any case I wasn't (until now) doubting Daniel's motivations, rather
> I was pretty sure he had something neat in mind.

I like it but I can't think of anything off hand that I'd use it for 
that I couldn't just as easily use either comments or a separate file to 
do. And obviously as you point out there's an argument for enforcing 
only known options as a basic sanity check.

On the other hand there have been plenty of times where I wished 
something would gracefully ignore options it didn't recognize which came 
from newer versions or from distribution patched versions. It gets in 
the way of portability and site/organization-wide administration in some 
cases unnecessarily. Sometimes the unknown options could be simply 
ignored and the end result would still be what I wanted. Ideally it 
should be a user-configurable behavior whether to die/abort or try to 
limp along if possible. Sometimes you really would rather a service not 
run at all if there is even any hint of a question about it's configuration.

-- 
bkw