On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Curtis Veit wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:42:42PM -0400, Brian S. Julin wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK, well, we've both had our say, and from the looks of things,
> > I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this ever, so let us leave
> > the decision up to the others?
> >
> > Others? any Comments?
> >
> > --
> > Brian
> >
>
> I'll bite,
>
> I've checked with the local busybox maintainer who
> is both the upstream and debian maintainer for busybox.
>
> It was his opinion that each open source package
> should ideally provide (within the project source
> directory) a "project.spec" file and a "debian/"
> directory containing the various control files etc.
>
> Thus
>
> libgii/
> libgii/libgii.spec
> libgii/debian/
> libgii/debian/Changes
>
> and so on
If we really are going to keep packaging spec files in each lib, then I
want to say, that we should avoid creating a subdirectory for each kind of
package, i.e.
libgii/
libgii/debian/
libgii/rpm/
libgii/win32/
libgii/bsd/
libgii/solaris/
....
The reason is, I don't wanna loose the overview about which directory
contains source and which not.
I propose to do that in _one_ toplevel-directory:
libgii/
libgii/packages/
libgii/packages/debian/
libgii/packages/rpm/
libgii/packages/win32/
libgii/packages/bsd/
libgii/packages/solaris/
etc.
So developers won't loose the overview. The way how to organize different
kind of packages in the packages-directory should be left to the
maintainers. So developers won't loose the overview about coding-related
directory-structure, even when package-maintainers lost it. That is, what
I want to archieve.
CU,
Christoph Egger
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
