[tor-bugs] #13158 [Tor]: Did we ever document +/ semantics for config files?
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki
blackhole at torproject.org
Mon Sep 15 02:46:35 UTC 2014
#13158: Did we ever document +/ semantics for config files?
---------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: Sebastian | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.5.x-final
Component: Tor | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
Actual Points: | Parent ID:
Points: |
---------------------------+--------------------------------
Comment (by nickm):
Here is the relevant situation of doc/tor.1.txt:
{{{
THE CONFIGURATION FILE FORMAT
-----------------------------
All configuration options in a configuration are written on a single line
by
default. They take the form of an option name and a value, or an option
name
and a quoted value (option value or option "value"). Anything after a #
character is treated as a comment. Options are
case-insensitive. C-style escaped characters are allowed inside quoted
values. To split one configuration entry into multiple lines, use a single
backslash character (\) before the end of the line. Comments can be used
in
such multiline entries, but they must start at the beginning of a line.
By default, an option on the command line overrides an option found in the
configuration file, and an option in a configuration file overrides one in
the defaults file.
This rule is simple for options that take a single value, but it can
become
complicated for options that are allowed to occur more than once: if you
specify four SOCKSPorts in your configuration file, and one more SOCKSPort
on
the command line, the option on the command line will replace __all__ of
the
SOCKSPorts in the configuration file. If this isn't what you want, prefix
the option name with a plus sign, and it will be appended to the previous
set
of options instead.
Alternatively, you might want to remove every instance of an option in the
configuration file, and not replace it at all: you might want to say on
the
command line that you want no SOCKSPorts at all. To do that, prefix the
option name with a forward slash.
}}}
How should this be rewritten? Where should it go instead? I'd be happy
to take a patch here.
> Also, I admit that I'm not really sold on this new syntax -- so I've
been trying to avoid situations where ordinary users actually need to use
it or know about it.
Going forward: please let me know early in the 0.2.6 series about
situations where we're committing or about to commit stuff that you think
you're going to be remain unsold on. :)
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13158#comment:2>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
More information about the tor-bugs
mailing list