editreg command files

[John H Terpstra]

Richard,

This sounds good to me.

Suggest we stick with REGEDIT4 as the version info for now just so as NOT
to confuse anyone (or any M$ thing).

- John T.

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Richard Sharpe wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Having thought about this issue a little more, I propose using a format
> similar to REGEDIT4. Indeed, for compatibility, I propose that editreg be
> able to process REGEDIT4 files, and that I specify an EDITREG1.0 file
> format as well.
>
> REGEDIT4 seems to have the syntax:
>
> REGEDIT4
>
> \[[-]<key>\]
> "<value-name>"=[-]|"<value-expression>"
>
> Where a - in front of a key name serves to delete that key, otherwise it
> is added, and a - after the equal sign serves to delete that value name. I
> would imagine that an empty value name signifies the default value.
>
> Since I also want to be able to deal with renaming keys, and
> adding/changing security, the EDITREG1.0 format will be similar to the
> above, except:
>
> EDITREG1.0
>
> \[[<k-cmd>:]<key>[:<new-name>]\]
> [S:<s-cmd>:<sec-expression>[:<new-sec-exp>]]
> [V:<v-cmd>:<val-expression>]
>
> ...
>
> k-cmd ::= A | D | R # Add, Delete, Rename
> s-kmd ::= A | I<n> | D | C # Add, Insert at n, Delete, Change
>
> and so on ...
>
> Regards
> -----
> Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
> sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
>

-- 
John H Terpstra
Email: jht at samba.org