On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 13:54 -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 07:47:31AM -0800, John Admanski wrote: > > The "bin" thing is really just historical; it's pretty pointless, I just > > don't think anybody has really cared enough to go through the trouble of > > eliminating it. You have to be careful, because bin is also where the > > executables live so you have to make sure you fix up anything executing > > scripts in there, not just all the import statements. > > Makes sense. > > > > > As for the kvm libraries, I think that looks fine, not being all that > > familiar with them. It would be nice for generic code to go in client/bin > > (or client/common_lib). > > Is there a reason to not add generic client code to > "client/<module_name>" instead of "client/bin/<module_name>"? I think > the length of our module paths (e.g. "autotest_lib.client.bin.<module>") > is an annoying issue today, and eliminating "bin" on new modules would > make it a little better.
I see an opportunity for us to do some cleanup on that and eliminate bin. Now, we need a plan of migration, a carefully made patchset, and tons of testing. Perhaps the entire contents of bin can be dropped into client altogether, but that is not too symmetrical with common_lib. Ideas? _______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list [email protected] http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
