Profile include support, round 2

[Nicolas Williams]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 02:14:02PM -0400, ghudson at MIT.EDU wrote:
> Although Ken didn't specifically ask for a change, I've decided that
> it would be more conservative to ensure that include profile fragments
> are syntactically independent of their parents.
> 
> My first thought was to reset the syntactic parsing state before and
> after each include, but I thought of a simpler design: use a fresh
> state for included files, sharing only the root section with the
> parent.  So if you do something pathological like:

I agree, the included files should be plain profiles, as opposed to
being treated as if they were cut-n-pasted into the profile where they
are included.

> I don't expect anyone to do anything that pathological.  But I could
> see people doing something like:
> 
>   [plugins]
>   includedir /etc/krb5/plugins
>   # plugin fragments just assume they're already in the [plugins]
> 
> and I don't really want us to have to support that.

Indeed.

> Does this design revision sound okay?  I will commit the change and
> update the project proposal, but it's easily reverted if the dev
> community prefers the preprocessor-like approach I began with.

Yes.