On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:08:06AM -0700, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: >> In the source repository, the 'parrot' in runtime/parrot/foo is >> pointless. It's a singleton directory, and it's redundant. > > I think that the point of runtime/parrot/ is that we may also > someday have runtime/perl6/, runtime/pynie/, runtime/cardinal/, > etc. directories, which will be the canonical location for > language-specific runtime libraries. > yes, that was the point at the time it was introduced. however, it confuses the source tree with the install tree, and goes against a parrot policy.
in the source tree (a.k.a. your working copy), we've set up the infrastructure for runtime/ to contain multiple language-level subdirs for runtime components (library, include, pmc, etc.) the intent is precisely as you suggest above. however, the project team has set a clear policy which states that in the source tree, "languages must be self-contained." this policy is in place so it will be easy to transition any language from the parrot repository to an external repository. we still have some work to do to make this policy both true and easy for hll developers to implement, which will happen before parrot 1.0. following the policy, the intent is that each language in the source tree have its own runtime directory under the language root directory (e.g. languages/perl6/runtime/). if it is determined that installations of the parrot vm and parrot hlls will use a common prefix for a runtime root directory (e.g. /usr/lib/parrot/runtime/), then runtime components for both the vm and hlls may be installed to that shared location. that's an install tree policy, and as far as i'm concerned, it hasn't been addressed yet (along with many other install-related policies.) ~jerry
