On 01-08-23 13:56:29 CEST, Massimiliano Pala wrote:
> > why are you using the vendor branch for openca-0.9, not just the main
> > branch as in openca-0.8?
>
> This is a good point... we could use the original openca cvs tree for
> the openca-0.9 ... I don't see any problems with this... we than will
we are talking about two different things here, branches (me) vs.
directories (you).
> > do you plan to 0.9 development in the main branch and to track 0.8
> > changes in 0.9's vendor branch?
>
> My plan is to work on the 0.8 branch for the next release while continuing
> development on the main openca branch. Then adding 0.8 changes to the
> main openca branch.
i expect bringing the openca/ directory back into the game will make
things even more difficult.
> The 0.8 branch was needed because som changes where ready for cvs integration
> while them were not intended for the 0.8 release ... but I agree with you
> that 0.9 development should be continued in the main openca branch.
i was talking about branches, while you are obviously talking about
directories!
there is no 0.8 branch, there is an openca-0.8 directory.
talking of using (CVS) branches vs. (filesystem) directories, michael
obviously favors directories, i'm not so sure about you, and i can live
with both.
apart from that, IMHO the cvs layout should be identical to the
distribution layout, because otherwise, how is it supposed to be possible
the make(1) in both?
in fact, it seems to me that it is *not* possible to install from a cvs
checkout, right?
the Makefile in openca-0.9/src/modules/ uses *.tar.gz, which is
supposedly empty.
btw, what about giovanni faglioni and eric bergeron, are they active? (i
don't remember seeing any mails from them on the lists...)
rj
_______________________________________________
OpenCA-Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openca-devel
