On 16 Jul 2001 17:34:03 +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
>
> On 16 Jul 2001, Thayne Harbaugh wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jul 2001 20:56:51 -0600, Curtis Veit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > libgii/
> > > > libgii/packages/
> > > > libgii/packages/debian/
> > > > libgii/packages/rpm/
> > > > libgii/packages/win32/
> > > > libgii/packages/bsd/
> > > > libgii/packages/solaris/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This looks good to me as well except that the directory
> > > does not actually hold packages, so perhaps one of these?
> > >
> > > dist/
> > > package/
> > > packing/
> > > or
> > > pack/
> > >
> > >
> > > Any comments on the suggestion to *only* support
> > > the generation of the source file for distros
> > > with the build system?
> >
> > I dislike pruning out a few files from the source tree for this. It
> > creates more overhead for packaging each individual package type.
>
> Well, we assume you don't create packages every day, do you?
I never install anything on my machine without packaging it - even CVS
builds of libgii and libggi are packaaged. It's safer and easier to
cleanup files and back out to a pristine state.
>
> > The other problem is that sometimes people want to work with multiple
> > packaging types but fetch their source from a single channel.
> > This isn't the same as a Linux kernel where PPC doesn't care what's in
> > linux/arch/i386 linux/arch/sparc linux/arch/mips etc. These are just
> > a few tiny files.
> >
> > I don't like pruning out files.
>
> How about creating symlinks (i.e. from libgii/debian to
> libgii/dist/debian) for doing this job. The result should be the same,
> then.
Sure, that's fine - but that's not what I was referring too. I'm
against pruning out debian files for rpm's and vice versa. Maybe my
response wasn't correct for Curtis' orriginal question . . .
>
>
> CU,
>
> Christoph Egger
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Thayne Harbaugh
