Am 19.08.2011 14:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
On 19.08.2011 13:43, Ingrid von der Mehden wrote:
Am 18.08.2011 18:27, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
On 18.08.2011 17:17, Rob Weir wrote:
[...]
2) Do we have the basic directory structure right? (Could fix that
later, but easier to get it right initially)
The structure is fine and AFAIK reflects the consensus, just the names
"main" and "extras" are debatable. We will have an "extras" module in
the "main" repo, perhaps we can find a better name for that part. But
that can be changed easily post import.
If we want to change the 'outer' directory names, lets change them now.
It is difficult enough for people to learn all the new things and find
the way to the code. So let us not make it more complicated by changing
the main repository path more often than necessary.
I doubt that changing it next week, directly after import, would confuse
anyone. OTOH getting the first import soon and not postponing it until
this discussion has settled is a big step forward.
Directly after import is fine. There was consensus on that already. But
if we don't discuss the name change now, we need another couple of weeks
and the moment directly after import will have gone. So do you have
different names in mind?
For the two 'extras' directories I would favor to move as much stuff as
possible from the inner 'extras' to the outer 'extras'. If that is not
possible lets rename the inner one. Looking at the deliver list we seem
to have wordbooks and fonts here. All the gallery content and the
templates are here also even with localization! I doubt that most of
this is really needed for the typical day to day coding. It's more
design related stuff. So moving this out of 'main' would be a benefit.
But that move can be done later. When we do that I would like to
consider moving module helpcontent2 to the outer extras directory also.
Hm, what is the meaning of "main"? Is it a "minimal" repository that is
needed for building at least the code or should it be what makes up the
"regular" en-US build? If we agree that it's the latter, the "extras"
module belongs into "main". Of course we can think about breaking it
into several parts, like "templates", "gallery" etc. That would be an
improvement not only because it avoids the name clash.
Yeah breaking it apart in the described way would be an improvement also.
Good question regarding 'minimal' and 'regular'. I am not totally
decided. Is there a way to have both? For the day to day development I
think an easy and fast way to build a minimal office would be the
greater benefit. But that demand might clash with demands from QA side ...
I haven't looked so deeply into the new build system and the packaging
so far. Would it be possible to build a minimal office install set with
or without the outer 'extras' directory dependent on its existence? Or
is it necessary to define some environment variables?
It's not a problem of the build system, the packaging is too inflexible
ATM. But that can be tweaked also.
I hoped you would say that.
The new build system is capable of
working with several (sub-)repositories, the old one still needs the
"source_config" crutch.
Yes, I now found for the new system there is the environment variable
gb_REPOS which takes the list of repos. Lets assume it contains the two
repos 'main' and 'extras'. What happens if the directory 'extras' is not
present? Does the build abort with error, or does it continue with
warning? Can we make it so that it does continue with a gentle note?
Kind regards,
Ingrid
Regards,
Mathias
