[Xastir-Dev] Re: New Directory Structure

[Alan Crosswell]

migration scripts attached.  Might need a bit more tweaking or 
idiot-proofing.  Didn't bother with a version tag just yet.  Make the 
installer run it manually one time I think.  Any rank newbies will not 
yet have a .xastir directory and any old-timers are quite able to deal 
with an extra step given all the build steps they had to go through to 
get the code running in the first place.
/a

Curt Mills, WE7U wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Alan Crosswell wrote:
> 
> 
>>I suggest a migration script.  I started writing it on the train this morning.
>>All that datadir stuff delayed my getting it done yesterday:-)  It can be
>>invoked from make install but also perhaps at xastir startup since the
>>xastir.cfg needs to get rewritten.
> 
> 
> I guess I would vote for moving the directory during install, then a
> separate script (invoked from within Xastir?) that edits the
> xastir.cnf file and then writes a tag somewhere that says what
> revision of config file we're at.  Perhaps if the Xastir-invoked
> script converts something, Xastir needs to die/restart, or at least
> read it's own config file after the script runs (easier).
> 
> The reason I'm suggesting that we write a tag as to the config file
> version is so that the conversion script knows when it's work has
> already been done and doesn't try to re-write directories again.
> People might have some unusual setups for Xastir, and we don't want
> to re-write the directories for them.
> 
> Do we write the tag into the config file, and tweak Xastir to carry
> that through as it re-writes the config file each time?  Write the
> config file revision number to a new file?
> 
> I assume the new script would be located in /usr/local/lib/xastir
> for a standard install?
> 
> Once we get this mechanism in place, we'll probably need to keep
> extending the conversion script(s) over time as we do other major
> changes to config files or directory layouts.  We'll have to keep
> earlier conversions in place and just keep adding to the scripts.
> 
> Anyone see any problems with this before we go down this path?
>