Re: More 1.8 stuff

>> midgard-data or midgard-core?
>> Creating conf.d and schema dir in core adds a bit of pain for binary packages.
> How? I'm not a packaging expert, but I cannot see how this will differ
> from doing it in -data, unless /etc/midgard isn't created in core. If
> so, then -data is natural.

midgard-core package should be library package, so should provide only
library files.

>> So , I see one of these two solutions:
>> 1. Create these dirs in core and force binary packages to have additional
>> package like midgard-tools.
>> 2. Move all command line tools to midgard-data.
>
> I think -core should create conf.d and schemadir.

Jarko?

>> > Dbupdate=yes
>>
>> I do not recommend dbupdate to be set to true. As long as you do not have database
>> backup. I am not sure if MgdObjects schema define any non standard dbtypes.
> Ok, when do you think this option will be production ready?

As soon as we find all legacy tables' issues.

> If never, it should be
> removed.

No, this is very important feature. Let's say you made a mistake in schema
and defined integer instead of string. In such case you fix your schema and "reload"
midgard-schema with dbupdate option set to true.

Negative point of this feature is the fact that it updates *all* tables defined
in *all* schemas.

Piotras