Re: [Scrollkeeper-devel] scrollkeeper-0.3.x and GNOME 1.4.x

[Joe M. C. <ma...@ma...>]

On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 16:23, Dan Mueth wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 May 2002, Joe Clarke wrote:
> 
> > I don't think I was clear.  The build of gnome-core _succeeds_, however,
> > the OMF files for certain components are not installed.  This breaks
> > FreeBSD's packaging system since the plist refers to files that do not
> > exist.  The Makefiles look pretty solid to me.
> 
> Ah, ok.  I'm not familiar with the plist system.  I'm glad that at least 
> the build and regular install work correctly.  I hope the plist system can 
> be massaged into ignoring these missing files.
> 
> If we have to, we could hack scrollkeeper-preinstall to have a different
> failure mode where the OMF file is written.  The easy ways to do this
> though would produce an invalid OMF file, without the encoding declaration
> (eg. just copy the OMF file as is).  It would at least allow the package
> build to proceed, although SK would not be able to register these
> documents when they are installed. (It would silently fail to register
> them, writing a message to the log file at install time.)  Tell me what
> you think, as this would be easy to do and may be helpful for other
> packaging systems.

Yes, please!  This would make it so FreeBSD could use SK 0.3.x|0.4.x
globally.  Yelp will be pleased ;-).

Joe

> 
> > > If we want complete support for older OMF files, we would need to be able
> > > to automatically convert old OMF files to conform to the DTD.  It looks
> > > like John has made a lot of progress in this.  We would need to try to
> > > guess the encoding, which we can probably get right some but not all the
> > > time.  For this to be useful, we would have to add support for SGML docs
> > > back to ScrollKeeper.  The original SGML support used openjade which a lot
> > > of distributors and people complained about as being crufty and uncommon.
> > > We would need to use the SGML support DV put into libxml2, which should be
> > > much better but still has some issues I think.
> > >
> > > The question is, do we want SK-0.4.0 to fail gracefully for old OMF files
> > > or do we want to try to get complete backwards compatibility with full
> > > functionality?
> > 
> > I'd like to see full backwards compat.  However, the more I look into
> > things, I _think_ I can create both scrollkeeper (0.2) and scrollkeeper2
> > (0.3.x|0.4.x) ports which will be built depending on the version of GNOME
> > desired.  It looks like GNOME 1.4.x libraries (i.e. gnome-libs, oaf,
> > bonobo, etc.) don't really use scrollkeeper as much as the desktop
> > components (i.e. gnome-core, gnome-applets, gnome-utils, etc.) do.  If
> > that's the case, then I should be okay.  Thoughts....
> 
> In GNOME 1.4.x, only Nautilus accesses the ScrollKeeper database info.  
> All of the packages with end-user documentation (ie. the desktop 
> components) install docs with OMF files, while none of the platform 
> packages (ie. libraries) do.
> 
> > I really appreciate this dialog.  It's helping a lot with the porting
> > process.
> 
> :)
> 
> It is good to review these things periodically, since most people who need 
> to know these things don't always watch this mailing list.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc