On 8/23/12 11:37 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 08/23/2012 01:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: >> Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: >>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<kay.sch...@gmail.com>: >>>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for >>>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially: >>>>> >>>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items> >>>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items> >>>>> >>>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're >>>>> still >>>>> being used >>>>> >>>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed >>>>> structure, >>>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to >>>>> work on >>>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> MzK >>>>> >>>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices: >>>>> take it or leave it. " >>>>> -- Buddy Hackett >>>> >>>> Warning: Layman comment following. >>>> >>>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to >>>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like >>>> >>>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera >>>> >>>> were<lang abbreviation> includes en-US at the same level of all the >>>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree. >>> >>> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable". We don't >>> release unstable code, do we? > > correct, and I think the schema that RGB currently proposes without the > "/stable" is what Juergen basically proposed if memory serves. > (I'm too lazy to go look for it. :/ ) > >> >> I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF: >> >> We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/. >> >> Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right. > > Right now, since we are not releasing "betas" and I don't see this > happening in the future given the ASF definition of "release", we have > no need for a "/stable" vs anything else.
more or less but with going back to my proposal I think Rob made a good proposal with some minimal but useful differentiation. The only thing I woudl change is src = source because we already have it ;-) /ooo/<VERSION>/source /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/<LANG>/ /ooo/<VERSION>/bin/SDK/ > >> >>> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries, >>> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION. >>> >>> So: >>> >>> /ooo/3.4.1/source here >>> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here >>> >>> This might be harmonized as: >>> >>> /ooo/VERSION/src >>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/ >>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK > > yes. Hopefully Juergen will weigh in soonish. > not really necessary, I think we are more or less all on the same track ;-) Juergen (who is moving slowly over in vacation mode) > >> >> Or just >> >> /ooo/VERSION/ >> >> to get the most flat structure. >> >> Maybe >> >> /ooo/VERSION/src/ >> /ooo/VERSION/bin/ >> >> if it's needed to separate source and binary files. >> >> Marcus >> >
