Michael Tokarev:
> Victor.Duchovnimorganstanley.com wrote:
> >
> []
> > Computing the correct map spec (in a shell script) is complex because
> > "postconf" returns unexpanded variable values. It would be made easier if
> > "postconf -x -h variable" returned the fully expanded value of a
> > configuration variable (this would be valuable more broadly).
>
> Just a little somewhat unrelated note.
> Victor, before modifying postconf to accept -x option, think: -x stands
> for execute, not expand. ;) My idea was to have `postconf -x someprog args'
> to set up environment - export ALL configuration as env. variables, expanded --
> and execute someprog with args. Just like `env foo=bar someprog args'. That
> way, some postfix's tasks will be very trivial -- install, postfix check/start
> etc, and many others. In other words, it's my vote that -x will not be used
> to mean "expand" but be reserved for "execute". ;) Maybe -X?

DON'T do this. Postfix exports only a few things to the environment
for a reason.

If you export all Postfix parameters then there will inevitably be
name space will conflicts with other software, and the problem will
only get worse over time as either Postfix and/or shells and/or
systems evolve. Evolving Postfix is enough trouble without having
to worry about possible environment name conflicts with other
software.

This causes the result of something to depend on the version of
the shell and operating system that people use. Bad idea. Not
robust.

        Wietse
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]