Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] Configurability of OMF_DIR

[Dan M. <d-...@uc...>]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, L=E1szl=F3 Kov=E1cs wrote:

> One more thing, with this we would have three ways of specifying OMF
> file locations.
>
> We have:
>
> - and environment variable OMF_DIR
> - the scrollkeeper.conf variable OMF_DIR
> - the -o flag of scrollkeeper-update
>
> This is probably too much. I think the environment variable should go
> away and maybe the -o flag also. If -o stays then the final set of
> directories should be the unification of the -o list and the OMF_DIR
> list from scrollkeeper.conf.
>
> Thoughts?

We certainly need to keep scrollkeeper.conf, so distributions can set up =
a
reasonable system.  The OMF_DIR variable is very nice for people
developers, who set up different paths with development or stable
versions.  It is also the only nice way for users to set up their own
databases in their home directory.  I suppose you could have a
.scrollkeeper file in a user's home directory instead of having OMF_DIR,
but that doesn't really work for systems where you want to switch back an=
d
forth between using two different databases (as done by developers with
stable and unstable prefixes).  So, I think we really should keep the
environment variable too.

I believe we originally introduced the -o flag so that when a person is
building an RPM they create a database in a path under the BUILDROOT.  In
this case, using scrollkeeper.conf would do the wrong thing.  I'm not
sure if we can simply set OMF_DIR before running scrollkeeper-update.  It
seems like keeping the -o flag is a little more elegant.

So, I think we should keep all three of these.

Dan