Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] What about the distributions?

[Ali A. <ALI...@au...>]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Eric Bischoff wrote:

> laszlo kovacs wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > Thanks for this, but I don't know much about packaging in general so I
> > don't have much clue about what you are suggesting.
> 
> Let me explain you.
> 
> In Linux world, it's not the same person that programs the software and
> that packages the software, unlike in Windows world.
> 
> The software programmer produces a Makefile. This makefile has an
> "install" section that is enough to install the software locally.
> 
> The packager takes this makefile, runs it on his own computer, and sees
> what comes of it. He usually gets a set of files that will go into some
> list and be distributed.
> 
> The problem appears when the makefile does not simply create a
> standalone file, but *modifies* a centralized database. That's exactly
> what will happen with scrollkeeper-install. There's no resulting file
> that can simply be thrown into the distribution: the result is a
> *portion* of a file. So the packager puts the corresponding instructions
> in what is called a "post-installation" script. The packager builds the
> package on his own computer, but he knows the post-installation script
> will be run on the end-user's computer.
> 
> This is why Dan's setup would simply not have worked.
> 
> The most efficient solution and that will not require too much changes
> in existing makefiles and specfiles is to split the script in two:
> - one part, called in "install" section of the makefile, gathers all the
> OMF info into a "metainformation snippet"
> - another part, called in the post-installation script of the specfile
> (or whatever equivalent), merges this snippet with the existing
> database, which holds both the contents list and the OMF information.
> 
> > Anyway the install
> > and uninstall scripts are very easy to change as they are small so any
> > change can be done quickly.
> 
> Better so. Here is in short what I propose.
> 
> Before:
> > --------------------------------
> > In the Makefile:
> > > install:
> > >         cp foo.sgml $(DOCDIR)
> > >         cp foo-omf $(DOCDIR)
> > >         scrollkeeper-install $(DOCDIR)/foo.sgml $(DOCDIR)/foo-omf
> > --------------------------------
> 3 lines *per document* in the Makefile
> 
> After:
> > --------------------------------
> > In the Makefile:
> > > install:
> > >         cp foo.sgml $(DOCDIR)
> > >         scrollkeeper-preinstall $(DOCDIR)/foo.sgml foo.omf > $(DOCDIR)/doc-contents.omf
> >
> > In the SPEC file:
> > > %Post
> > >         scrollkeeper-install $DOCDIR/doc-contents.omf
> > >
> > > %Postun
> > >         scrollkeeper-uninstall $DOCDIR/doc-contents.omf
> > >
> > > %Files
> > >	    $DOCDIR/doc-contents.omf
> > --------------------------------
> 2 lines *per document* in the makefile
> 3 lines *for all documents* in the specfile


Unfortunately - when people './configure;make;make install' they will 
miss out on this aspect.

What you might need to do is to create some sort of 
system/cron-job/daemon in which scrollkeeper checks the local files 
installed - if it is missing it will remove them from its internal 
database.

Otherwise you will need a big huge README in each project saying "please 
run scrollkeeper-install after 'make install' is done"