Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] Configurability of OMF_DIR

[<las...@Su...>]

Dan Mueth wrote:
> =

> 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 u=
p 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 =
and
> 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

Ok, sounds good.

Laszlo