Arvind Srinivasan wrote:
> Hi,
> 

> a) I propose that we remove the version numbers from the directory names 
> and instead just use the component names - APC, ruby, php etc - for the 
> top-level directories.
> 
> b) Under each top-level directory, I propose that we do not check in the 
> exploded version of the sources for each component. Instead each of 
> these top-level directories will contain the upstream community's 
> distribution of the sources (e.g. imap-2006c1.tar.Z), a Makefile and any 
> source patches (maybe even a 'patches' directory containing all patches) 
> that need to be applied to the upstream sources before we build the 
> sources. Each component's Makefile will contain rules that will unzip 
> the source distribution, apply any applicable patches, run any 
> configuration scripts, build and install the component
> 

The above doesn't allow for simply browsing the sources (which I often 
do). Of course, I can always untar each directory - it just seems a 
little wierd.
Also, your proposal does not allow for multiple simultaneous versions. I 
suspect we'll need this functionality.
It might be better to have a directory structure like :
<top-level>/imap/2006c1.

It's not clear to me how the patches will be updated for different 
versions. Is a particular patch tied to a version ?

Finally, the Makefile should have several targets - one that does all 
that you describe, and others for configure/make/make install etc. 
depending on the state you're in.

> % ls imap (after my proposed changes)
> ./                  Makefile            src.patch
> ../                 imap-2006c1.tar.Z
> 
> Currently, the upstream community's distribution is not checked in 
> anywhere and since the individual sources are checked in, it is quite 
> easy to inadvertently change the sources and check that in (instead of 
> applying the change as a patch). I think it will make maintenance much 
> easier if we carry the upstream distribution as is and have the logic 
> for unzipping/configuring/building the component in Makefiles.
> 

Makes sense.

> c) I propose that we replace the top-level build_webstack.sh script with 
> a Makefile
> 

Yes - this needs to be done.

> This is similar to what is being done for sfw components e.g. 
> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/sfw/usr/src/cmd/apache2/Makefile.sfw
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Arvind

Shanti

> _______________________________________________
> webstack-discuss mailing list
> webstack-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/webstack-discuss

Reply via email to