Good point. comments inline ...
Anil Gangolli wrote:
Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being combined in,
and I had a couple of comments/questions.
(1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree
something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we expect it
to look like the top of the roller source tree does in SVN which itself
contains several directories and files (e.g. "web", "tools", build.xml)
as well as the actual "src" directory below it.
yes, that definitely makes sense.
(2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not include the
binary(?)
what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source
distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes sense to
me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary.
(3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are under
the "tools" in such combined packages?
seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp" directory
and include a "sources" directory in the source distribution. in that
case the "sources" directory would contain everything needed to build
the war, including libs.
would that work?
-- Allen
--a.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout
+1
On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
Allen Gilliland wrote:
> we talked about this a while back and I've just now got around to
> pulling this into an actual proposal ...
>
>
http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout
>
> nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the distribution so
> that the download isn't just the webapp.
>
> -- Allen
>
