David Douthitt, 2001-07-18 12:08 -0400
>Mike Noyes wrote:
> >
> > David Douthitt, 2001-07-17 23:34 -0400
> > >Andrew Hoying wrote:
> > >
> > > > We could develop a nice xml/xslt interface to it all that would be
> > > > easy to parse, sort and categorize. It makes a lot of sense, but
> > > > would require updating a lot of old packages to include the .desc
> > > > file.
> > >
> > >That wouldn't take that much. I've recompiled almost everything at
> > >least once. Next step is to create a LRP directory which contains
> > >everything, including options used to compile, etc.
>
> > There is already a packages directory specifically for this purpose.
>
>As I understand things, this packages directory is for uploading
>packages, source files, and diff files. This is not what I was talking
>about...
David,
My understanding is that source files and diffs would be in CVS
exclusively. Packages (.lrp) would be the only things in the pub/packages
tree. Also thanks to Andrew and your suggestions .help files will reside
there too.
>Someone still has to create a lrp/ directory (akin to the debian/
>directory) in a source tree, then create a *.diff file to match what was
>added and changed and configured and all.... A diff file has to be
>created before it can be stored in your packages directory tree.
I thought this was only necessary for CVS.
> > If everyone starts to use this directory for packages it will make
> > things easier for users. It will allow me to periodically tarball this
> > directory and release it in our files area. Also, it will give us an
> > idea of the tree structure we should employ in CVS.
>
>However, that doesn't account for the structure under that directory.
Correct.
>I suggest the following:
>
>* each packager selects the best location for their package ("Group:"
>tag in <pkg>.desc)
>* uncategorized packages categorized by general consent, or updated by
>someone in full
>* groups have initial caps and be descriptive: "Network/Diagnostics"
>* recommended groups should be present (skeleton structure?)
These are all good ideas.
>Then, the packages directory should be broken in two (unless I
>misunderstood):
>
>1. packages (*.lrp)
This is what I'm suggesting.
>2. source to packages...
I think this needs to be in CVS. Also, it probably should wait until a
consensus on the structure for (1) is achieved.
>Also, many of us are just creating *.lrp files, and then putting them
>into a single directory. Not a good idea, eh?
I believe every developer for this project should have control over content
and structure of their directories. However, we need to agree on structures
for the common areas (e.g. pub/packages).
>Should I just go and copy my source tree off of the CDROM and put it in
>that directory?
I think source trees belong in CVS. That's my opinion though. I'm open to
other suggestions.
Remember that our space on the SF shell server is limited. A df shows the
/home/groups SF shell mount with 93% used. Our CVS repository has an
initial capacity of 512MB, and our files area space is unlimited. I'm not
sure of the space allowed for developers on the compile farm.
--
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
