On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 01:51:59PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:32 PM > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:38:45PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > >... > > > Why do we add the additional complexity of a src/ directory within > > > apr-util? > > > Can't we keep to the same simplicity as apr itself? Suggesting, > > > therefore, > > > that we aught to have apr-util/buckets rather than apr-util/src/buckets. > > > The extra branch doesn't accomplish anything for us, and makes it harder > > > to jump between repositories. > > > > Two reasons: > > > > 1) we locate all the objects to add to the library using "find". it is > > easier to find them under "src/" rather than enumerating each source > > subdir. We can't use "." because that would pick up "test/". > > > > 2) to keep the top-level cleaner. we have eight groups of functionality in > > apr-util/src/. tossing those up a level would make that a bit more > > confusing. Currently, the top-level has: build/, docs/, include/, src/, > > and test/. Each is obvious in purpose. > > Compelling, but can we agree to agree between apr and apr-util? > > I'm +.5 for applying this same structure to apr (by the benefits > you cite above.) > > I'm -1 for leaving things as they are, and would live with apr-util following > the structure of apr (and that is a veto, my head was spinning the other day). > > Anyone else care to vote for the src/package/ or simply package/ structure?
Subtle benefit: If we add the same structure to APR, then we can use the same "find" mechanism for relinking the library (thereby avoiding the darn relink every time you do a "make" in there). Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
