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

[laszlo k. <las...@su...>]

> What exactly is the proposal? I don't understand how post-install or
> partial databases could fix the problem?
I think the problem was described at the beginning of the proposal. In
order to install a doc with Scrollkeeper, a script has to be run that
changes the Scrollkeeper database. If this is done from "make install"
then the database will be modified when a package is installed with
"make install" or when the package is turned to another format (like
RPM) as the conversion process also uses "make install". We dont want
the later. Eric thinks "make install" should behave indentically when
run from command line (for installation) or when used to create a
package in a different format. He also thinks that running Scrollkeeper
install from a post install script is not an option as then post install
scripts have to be added to a large number of packages and that would
upset packagers and post install scripts are slow. He suggests that we
should use partial databases when we build a package (or install with
make install, I am not sure, but I dont think it is important). The
partial database would contain the data of that package's documentation.
This would be exported to the help browser. So the help browser has to
deal with partial databases on its own or through a library we supply to
create an interface that would unify the partial databases for the
browser.

> Perhaps we can really do a normal install of the OMF file. When
> ScrollKeeper access the metadata it would check that the file "really
> exists" if it does then okay, if it doesn't it gets deleted from the
> database and "not found" is returned.
I thought the file would be installed in /tmp at RPM creation so
Scrollkeeper would think it is installed. Or this is not what you are
talking about?

Laszlo