Menu
▾
▴
scrollkeeper-devel
|
From: Dan M. <d-...@uc...> - 2001-06-27 20:14:49
|
One other thing which we should deal with pretty soon is configuration of the OMF directories. We started with the path determined at build time as $prefix/share/omf under which all OMF files must be placed. Then we added the OMF_DIR environment variable to allow one to specify multiple paths in order of preference. What we really want is a system-wide default which can have multiple paths and which can be set to something reasonable by the distribution. I think SuSe Linux had a problem with how they installed and configured GNOME and ScrollKeeper which forced one to have to make a symbolic link for your docs to work, given that we did not provide another way to do this. I propose we add a configuration file in /etc which defines this path. How about /etc/scrollkeeper.conf. For now, we just have one variable to define: OMF_DIR=path1:path2:path3 What is a good default path? Perhaps: OMF_DIR=/usr/share/omf:/usr/local/share/omf:/opt/omf Am I missing some paths we should have in there? Comments? Dan |
|
From: Karl E. <ke...@gm...> - 2001-06-28 04:02:28
|
Dan Mueth <d-...@uc...> writes:
>> I propose we add a configuration file in /etc which defines this
> path. How about /etc/scrollkeeper.conf. For now, we just have one
> variable to define:
> OMF_DIR=path1:path2:path3
Thanks for investigating!
> What is a good default path? Perhaps:
> OMF_DIR=/usr/share/omf:/usr/local/share/omf:/opt/omf
It rather /opt/gnome/share/omf than /opt/omf ;) Maybe,
/opt/kde/share/omf can't hurt (prepared for the future).
--
work : ke...@su... | ,__o
: http://www.suse.de/~ke/ | _-\_<,
home : ke...@gm... | (*)/'(*)
|
|
From: <las...@Su...> - 2001-06-28 13:22:12
|
Dan Mueth wrote: > > One other thing which we should deal with pretty soon is configuration of > the OMF directories. We started with the path determined at build time as > $prefix/share/omf under which all OMF files must be placed. Then we added > the OMF_DIR environment variable to allow one to specify multiple paths in > order of preference. > > What we really want is a system-wide default which can have multiple paths > and which can be set to something reasonable by the distribution. I think > SuSe Linux had a problem with how they installed and configured GNOME and > ScrollKeeper which forced one to have to make a symbolic link for your > docs to work, given that we did not provide another way to do this. > > I propose we add a configuration file in /etc which defines this > path. How about /etc/scrollkeeper.conf. For now, we just have one > variable to define: > OMF_DIR=path1:path2:path3 > > What is a good default path? Perhaps: > OMF_DIR=/usr/share/omf:/usr/local/share/omf:/opt/omf > > Am I missing some paths we should have in there? > I think for Solaris something like /opt/gnome-2.0/share/omf will be the one, but we'll see that later on. Laszlo |
|
From: <las...@Su...> - 2001-06-28 13:23:47
|
Karl Eichwalder wrote: > > Dan Mueth <d-...@uc...> writes: > > >> I propose we add a configuration file in /etc which defines this > > path. How about /etc/scrollkeeper.conf. For now, we just have one > > variable to define: > > OMF_DIR=path1:path2:path3 > > Thanks for investigating! > > > What is a good default path? Perhaps: > > OMF_DIR=/usr/share/omf:/usr/local/share/omf:/opt/omf > > It rather /opt/gnome/share/omf than /opt/omf ;) Maybe, > /opt/kde/share/omf can't hurt (prepared for the future). > Maybe it should be configurable somehow? So that packagers during build can specify what they want there? Laszlo |
|
From: Karl E. <ke...@gm...> - 2001-06-29 04:30:10
|
L=E1szl=F3 Kov=E1cs <las...@su...> writes:
> > It rather /opt/gnome/share/omf than /opt/omf ;) Maybe,
> > /opt/kde/share/omf can't hurt (prepared for the future).
> Maybe it should be configurable somehow? So that packagers during build
> can specify what they want there?
Sounds good. Something like a configure option:
--with-omf-dirs=3D/usr/share/omf:/opt/gnome/share/omf
or
--with-additional-omf-dirs=3D/opt/gnome/share/omf
Nevertheless it's needed to provide reasonable defaults.
--=20
work : ke...@su... | ,__o
: http://www.suse.de/~ke/ | _-\_<,
home : ke...@gm... | (*)/'(*)
|
|
From: <las...@Su...> - 2001-06-28 13:30:03
|
Dan Mueth wrote: > > One other thing which we should deal with pretty soon is configuration of > the OMF directories. We started with the path determined at build time as > $prefix/share/omf under which all OMF files must be placed. Then we added > the OMF_DIR environment variable to allow one to specify multiple paths in > order of preference. > > What we really want is a system-wide default which can have multiple paths > and which can be set to something reasonable by the distribution. I think > SuSe Linux had a problem with how they installed and configured GNOME and > ScrollKeeper which forced one to have to make a symbolic link for your > docs to work, given that we did not provide another way to do this. > > I propose we add a configuration file in /etc which defines this > path. How about /etc/scrollkeeper.conf. For now, we just have one > variable to define: > OMF_DIR=path1:path2:path3 > > What is a good default path? Perhaps: > OMF_DIR=/usr/share/omf:/usr/local/share/omf:/opt/omf > > Am I missing some paths we should have in there? > > Comments? > > Dan 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? Laszlo |
|
From: Dan M. <d-...@uc...> - 2001-07-02 17:58:51
|
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 |
|
From: <las...@Su...> - 2001-07-09 12:09:00
|
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 |
|
From: <las...@Su...> - 2001-07-15 13:49:53
|
Hi, I added /etc/scrollkeeper.conf with an extensive default value, and this is processed by Scrollkeeper now. The priorities are, the "-o" flag overwrites everything, then OMF_DIR environment variable, then /etc/scrollkeeper.conf, then scrollkeeper-config --omfdir. I couldn't figure out how to make configurable as I don't know how to make a new configure option (like --omfdirs or similar). If anybody knows, please let me know. Laszlo |
|
From: Dan M. <d-...@uc...> - 2001-07-15 17:38:49
|
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, L=E1szl=F3 Kov=E1cs wrote: > Hi, > > I added /etc/scrollkeeper.conf with an extensive default value, and thi= s > is processed by Scrollkeeper now. The priorities are, the "-o" flag > overwrites everything, then OMF_DIR environment variable, then > /etc/scrollkeeper.conf, then scrollkeeper-config --omfdir. Awesome. The feature list of 0.3 over 0.2 is getting huge. > I couldn't figure out how to make configurable as I don't know how to > make a new configure option (like --omfdirs or similar). If anybody > knows, please let me know. You mean for autoconf, right? I think you would do it like: AC_ARG_WITH(omf-dirs, [ --with-omfdirs=3DDIR Location of OMF directories]) if test "x$with_omfdirs" =3D x ; then omfdirs=3D/usr/share/omf:/usr/local/share/omf else omfdirs=3D$with_omfdirs fi AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(OMFDIRS, "$omfdirs") For more examples check out gnome-core which does a lot of this. Dan |