[peruser] Some suggestions

Lazy lazy404 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 01:07:52 MDT 2009

2009/8/31 Stefan Klingner <stefan.klingner at mephisto23.com>:
> compatibility to old configuration would be a good feature, but a converter
> and code only dedicated to the new configuration without the ballast of old
> versions would be better in my opinion. if we integrate it in the code the
> day will come when we have a problem to extend peruser, because a mixture
> of old and new configuration will be hard to manage with a growing code
> base and additional features.
I think it can be done without any code duplication, what's I'm
planing to do is to move the code defining a processor from config
parsing function to create_processor(name,chroot,user,cgroup,ect) old
processor whould call it without cgroups and with some
static user/group/chroot mapping to name ie. name whould be
"user:group:chroot", server env can search for this if it has 2

> what do you think about creating a converter script?
this won't do for us we have multiple config generators on multiple
machines, changing that takes time and I wan't to check if
those freebsd patches solves the memory corruption before moving to
apache 2.2 and dcx

More information about the Peruser mailing list