On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:58:10PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 17:47 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:23:10AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:04 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 05:21:37PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > We used to do this via a preprocessor macro so the build would fail
> > > > but since we changed the original code to use enums instead this is
not
> > > > possible anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Turn it into a runtime check.
> > > >
> > > > Simo.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Looks good, but I think the error message should clearly say that this
> > > is a packaging error and the user cannot do anything to fix this.
> >
> > Doesn't matter, normal users *must never* see this error.
> >
> > Simo.
> >
>
> ah, sorry for the wording I meant admin not user. I think if the person
> who configured sssd sees
>
> Option numbers do not match (X != Y)
>
> after startup he or she might think that there are only a certain number
> of config options allowed and tries to figure out what's wrong with the
> configuration.
I meant the admin as well.
It must be tested before we ship the code. It's just a test to help
developers, it should never happen in a release.
Simo.
ok, I give up :-)
ACK
bye,
Sumit