* Brad Hall ([email protected]) wrote: > As for the directory structure, I agree that the current layout is > cumbersome. The reason it was done was for ease of packaging; but if > the distros are going to package it using spec/deb files anyways then > it isn't necessary. What I was thinking is to move all of the pieces > that were separated out from the quantum directory back into it and > condense the paths. For example: > > <tree root>/client/lib/quantum/client/foo.py -> <tree > root>/quantum/client/foo.py > <tree root>/server/lib/quantum/api/foo.py -> <tree > root>/quantum/server/api/foo.py
Yeah, that makes sense to me. The only issue we had was with namespace and use of extensions. So as long as that's kept w/in the quantum namespace, should be good. > Which makes it similar to how it used to be. This requires that if we > want to keep our current setup.py scheme we'll have to rename them to > setup_server.py, setup_client.py, etc.. The setup_x.py can be a guide > for how the distros are supposed to split Quantum into multiple > packages. > > For the package split I think we still want to maintain > client/server/common/plugins so the spec files would have to > incorporate this. I don't think that should be too hard though as > pretty much everything will be in the quantum-common package; the > quantum-client package will include just the client binary, > quantum-server will include server binary + etc directory, etc. Right, that's about how I see it too (note: for simplicity, the current fedora package isn't this granular yet, but very much intended to be). > Does that sound reasonable to you? It does, yes. thanks, -chris -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
