On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:25:49PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I would like to see more opinions on the src/ thing than myself, > > > OtherBill, > > > and Ryan. We should not proceed on *any* course of action without that. I > > > suspect we will not have it resolved by tomorrow. I'm going to work on a > > > bunch of the items for the release, but we should do something to get a > > > write-up of the src-vs-not alternatives and get some more input. > > I think it is goofy to place a src directory in a source tree -- everything > in the distribution is source. If there are too many subdirectories, then > either abstract them into relevant categories or split them into different > library modules.
It isn't "a source tree". There is a lot more in the CVS repository than just source. There are build mechanisms, documentation, test programs and framework, public include areas, etc. Categorization is quite difficult: consider APR's 15 source subdirs. How could those possibly be grouped? We've already split the conceptual "portability code" and "portable code" into APR and APRUTIL respectively. But there are still a bunch of sub-categories that defy further grouping. The grouping that we *have* done (in APRUTIL, at least) is: build support, public headers, documentation, testing code, and source code. I believe a similar grouping makes sense within APR, too. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
