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

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

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, laszlo kovacs wrote:

> > 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?

I am saying USE a post-install script all the time whenever a 'make 
install' is done. ScrollKeeper would then be (internally) intelligent 
enough and able to distinguish an "installed" file from an "uninstalled" 
file. (the "uninstalled" (better name is "non-local") files are files in 
the DB, but not on the HD, and any help files on the internet (HTT)

Does this make it clearer?
 
Regards,
Ali