On 24 August 2012 10:08, Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<[email protected]>: >>>>>> 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/
It might be better to use "binaries". This is often used by ASF projects. It is plural because there are often multiple builds. It also cannot be confused with bin = wastebin. [In the US they use can == trashcan; the UK use bin == wastebin] Now -src and -bin are fine as part of a file name, but might be misinterpreted as a folder name. For developers, /bin/ has very different connotations (/usr/bin etc), but for end-users, they might be wary of downloading something that comes from what might as well be called: /ooo/<VERSION>/trash/ or /ooo/<VERSION>/waste/ Just a thought. >> >>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >
