[Namazu-users-en] Re: [ (can't open the index) ]] (Solved!)

[rex]

Tadamasa Teranishi <yw3t-trns at asahi-net.or.jp> [2007-04-09 23:05]:
> rex wrote:
> > 
> > > You should read the manual. see doc/en/manual.html.
> > 
> > The directions in the namazu-sample are not consistent with the
> > directions in the manual. How is the reader to know which is correct?
> 
> No. Because namazurc-sample (It is not namazu-sample.) is installed 
> in "$(sysconfdir)/$(PACKAGE)/". 
> "namazurc-sample" is copied onto "namazurc" by the directory of
> "$(sysconfdir)/$(PACKAGE)/".
> 
> This becomes RC file read the first so. 
> ("$(sysconfdir)/$(PACKAGE)/namazurc")
> 
> A minimum setting is completed by this. 
> 
> It is not indispensable to put the RC file on the same directory 
> as "namazu.cgi". 

I know. I prefer to keep config files with the code.
 
> ".namazurc" is needed for the first time in the same directory as 
> "namazu.cgi" so that only CGI may change the setting. 
>  
> > Wouldn't it be wise to make the information in namazu-sample clear?
> 
> It is certain not to have enhanced the document. 
> However, if the manual is read, it understands. 
> 
> > For example:
> > 
> > Do at least one of these three things:
> > 
> > 1) Copy namazu-sample -> ~/.namazurc
> >    (Necessary to run namazu as a user)
> > 
> > 2) Copy namazu-sample -> .namazurc in the directory where namazu.cgi is located
> >    (This or the step below is necessary for namazu.cgi)
> > 
> > 3) Copy namazu-sample ->  $(sysconfdir)/$(PACKAGE)/namazurc
> >    (Usually, /usr/local/etc/namazu/namazurc)
> 
> This is not correct. 
> # Perhaps, it is not likely to be able to understand still correctly. 
> 
> However, after it corrects it to a correct content, such a sample 
> might have to be shown. 

How about inserting a correct version in namazurc-sample?


> > Now, I'm trying to understand why sorting by date appears not to work
> > correctly with files created with MHonArc and indexed with mknmz with
> > the --mhonarc option.
> 
> Please retrieve the archive of ML of the UTC field sort about the 
> date sorting. 
> 
> The date sorting is sorting of the time of the file of the stamp. 
> It is not because of being sorted in date displayed in the 
> retrieval result the order. 

OK, did that. Details in a new thread.

Thanks,

-rex