Mike and I were discussing cvs off-list. Since much of this is
un-structured now, perhaps, we can impose some user-friendly and
consistent form on our cvs tree.
I am starting to realize that, perhaps, I should take a directory based
approach to helices' cvs tree.
I have not settled on any particular structure. However, I am wondering
about several things:
[1] Should I have separate trees for different underlying versions of
net-snmp? For example, I committed net-snmp v4.2.4. I am contemplating
building and committing both v4.2.5 and the totally different
distribution v5.x. So, one line of thinking is like this:
devel/helices/net-snmp/v4.2.4/netsnmp.lrp
devel/helices/net-snmp/v4.2.4/netsnmpd.lrp
devel/helices/net-snmp/v4.2.4/nettrapd.lrp
devel/helices/net-snmp/v4.2.5/netsnmp.lrp
devel/helices/net-snmp/v4.2.5/netsnmpd.lrp
devel/helices/net-snmp/v4.2.5/nettrapd.lrp
devel/helices/net-snmp/v5.0.2/netsnmp.lrp
devel/helices/net-snmp/v5.0.2/netsnmpd.lrp
devel/helices/net-snmp/v5.0.2/nettrapd.lrp
. . .
[2] Perhaps, my net-snmp package, for instance, should be in cvs in
expanded form, so that when only one (1) or a few file contents change,
that will be directly reflected in cvs? Under this scenario, when only
a single file -- perhaps, the primary binary? -- is changed, users can
checkout only that file.
[3] Item [2] presents a difficulty when a user wants the whole LRP
package as one (1) LRP file. Is there some way to properly archive and
compress a cvs directory tree and check that out?
[4] I am still confused on how best to handle package descriptions.
<http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/helices/net-snmp/> presents several
TXT files that, once clicked on, present descriptive text regarding the
LRP's that reside in versioned directories below this one. Another
example is Jacques Nilo's <http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/>
wonderful page that links to installation and troubleshooting
information. How are we to do this under cvs?
What do you think?
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
888.250.3987
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we
think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Two, two, TWO treats in one.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
