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

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

> Yes, but when the RPM is "done building" it cleans up after itself so the file
> would no longer exist under that location.
> 
> Perhaps what we need are two directories or something. So you would have:
> prefix/var/lib/scrollkeeper/processed
> prefix/var/lib/scrollkeeper/unprocessed
> 
> An "initial" scrollkeeper-install would put the file in the unprocessed
> section, scrollkeeper could then at some designated time, check all files in
> the unprocessed section, if they are found on the local drive they are moved
> to processed, otherwise they are removed from unprocessed.
> 
> But this presents another issue. What about "online docs"? the above
> implementation would force people to have docs on the "local" path!!! Instead
> of deleting the file, perhaps we should move it into a "not-installed"
> directory. That way if the help file is located at
> "http://www.doc.com/file.sgml" We could access it from the not-installed
> section.
> 
> The problem would arise with "syncing" the two directories (what if you have a
> "not-installed" doc and then later install it locally)
> 
> So perhaps we shouldn't have multiple databases (or directories, or whatever
> you want to call it). Perhaps we should always install files...
> 
> If a doc is not found/installed locally then ScrollKeeper should handle it.
> This sounds a lot like what Eric was saying doesn't it? ;) But he makes it
> sound that applications (help browsers) should handle it. Instead, I think
> that ScrollKeeper should natively handle it.
> 
> If I ask the ScrollKeeper database for "all installed docs" it would return
> that - I /could/ ask for all "not-installed" docs (which would return these
> docs + the HTTP ones + FTP ones + etc...)
> 
> Generally, when a help browser displays its "Index" (for Nautilus that is the
> Help Sidebar) it would only display the "installed" docs...
> 
> What do you think of this proposal?
> 
> Regards,
> Ali

I dont think I managed to understand this proposal. Does it adress the
problem of post install scripts? We can install docs to a unified
Scrollkeeper database only through a post install script or let the help
browser to deal with the individual metadata of each package separately.
Is this adressed in the proposal above?

Laszlo