🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BzAvy9.6rB@sci.kun.nl> lwj@cs.kun.nl (Luc Rooijakkers) writes:
>In <s1#r-j-@lynx.unm.edu> caadams@polaris.unm.edu (Clifford A Adams) writes:
>
>>Is someone willing to add the nov support to NN?
>
>This has been discussed by the nn maintainers, and there is interest in
>it. The problem is that it takes some work, and is a big backwards
>compatibility headache. What basically needs to be done is to scrap the
>old database alltogether and start work on nn 6.5. However, nov doesn't
>work over NNTP yet, and there is no precise equivalent of nnmaster yet
>(or so I think). Also, nov does not currently provide all of the functionality
>nn wants (in particular, it doesn't always count the lines).
>
>One approach that has been suggested is to put big #ifdefs around the
>old/new code, but this will make a mess. A different approach would
>be to make a pseudo-nov accessing the old database. Nobody has
>volunteered yet to do it.

	I looked at NN a bit more recently and can see some of the
problems with integrating NOV support.  One modification still seems
possible, however: using the NOV database for subjects and authors of
non-digest articles.  (I ran a small test and it seems that subject and
author text takes up most of the space in the "*.data" files.)

	Specifically, nn could have a configure #ifdef which says
that the site has the NOV database.  If this is defined, the
authors/subjects for (non-digest) articles will not be written to the
database, and will be read from the NOV db.

	Any comments?  I may attempt to write such a patch in a few
weeks (if someone else doesn't beat me to it :-).

				--Cliff

P.S.  Several people are working on NNTP extensions to use NOV.