Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: why is core stuff inside the campaigns folder? Because, in this draft of the reorganization, the 'campaigns' folder really becomes a 'packages' folder with the name 'campaigns' kept for backwards compatibility. Layout reproduced for reference: wesnoth data campaigns core images sounds music Descent_Into_Darkness images : Under_The_Burning_Suns images With the name change, it would look like this: wesnoth data packages core images sounds music Descent_Into_Darkness images : Under_The_Burning_Suns images I'm not sure yet, but I think it may make sense for multiplayer to become a package too. -- a href=http://www.catb.org/~esr/;Eric S. Raymond/a ___ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Personally I think it would make sense to require each campaign to be completely self-contained. A more complex alternative would be to designate some content (as opposed to campaigns) as core. I would think the core is anything in data except for data/campaigns. That's how I view the matter. Actually, I want to move towards 'core' content being structured *exactly the same way* that campaigns now are. This implies some fairly radical (though not player-visible) changes. Notably, we'd have to move from a directory structure like this: wesnoth images sounds music data campaigns Descent_Into_Darkness images : Under_The_Burning_Suns images to one like this: wesnoth data campaigns core images sounds music Descent_Into_Darkness images : Under_The_Burning_Suns images -- a href=http://www.catb.org/~esr/;Eric S. Raymond/a ___ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
Bruno Wolff III, On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:36:21PM -0500, you wrote: If references were only allowed within a campaign or to main line stuff and not cross campaign, we could make sure that removing a campaign will not break another campaign because of dependencies. This could enforce the rule that you are supposed to copy non main line objects rather than make references to them. This seems to contradict the stated aim that campaigns will be included and excluded using more relaxed criteria. Either mainline is semi-permanent and can be referenced by campaigns, or it is transient and should not be referenced by campaigns. Which is it? Personally I think it would make sense to require each campaign to be completely self-contained. A more complex alternative would be to designate some content (as opposed to campaigns) as core. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:23:54 +0200, ott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Wolff III, On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:36:21PM -0500, you wrote: If references were only allowed within a campaign or to main line stuff and not cross campaign, we could make sure that removing a campaign will not break another campaign because of dependencies. This could enforce the rule that you are supposed to copy non main line objects rather than make references to them. This seems to contradict the stated aim that campaigns will be included and excluded using more relaxed criteria. Either mainline is semi-permanent and can be referenced by campaigns, or it is transient and should not be referenced by campaigns. Which is it? I think we are using 'mainline' differently. I meant it to mean config files in data but not in data/campaigns. You might have thought I meant it to be the same as httt. Personally I think it would make sense to require each campaign to be completely self-contained. A more complex alternative would be to designate some content (as opposed to campaigns) as core. I would think the core is anything in data except for data/campaigns. ___ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
Sounds reasonable to me.
On 5/11/07, Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of you know that, with encouragement from other devs, I'm doing a
cleanup and reorganization of the Wesnoth directory layout. The immediate
motivation is to make correct behavior easier for tools like wmlscope
and wmllint, but there are long-standing issues about our data layout
beneath these symptoms.
After staring at the layout for a while, I think one source of
grubbiness is that we've used directories to create a sort of
half-baked package structure without making them package objects.
The way capaigns are laid out is representative; for a campaign
named Battle of Foobar there will be a Battle_of_Foobar.cfg
and a Battle_of_Foobar directory, with the directory sort of
accidentally a package by virtue of {}-inclusions in the .cfg.
I have a proposal for a small extension of preprocessor behavior to
make things cleaner.
New rule: When a directory reference like {foodir/} resolves
to a directory containing a file named %main.cfg, it is treated
as though the reference had been {foodir/%main.cfg}.
With this rule, Battle_of_Foobar.cfg can move to Battle_of_Foobar/%main.cfg.
The directory Battle_of_Foobar becomes a self-contained package. Including
it processes %main.cfg and whatever files %main.cfg chooses to include.
--
esr
___
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
--
---
In theory, theory and practice are the same,
but in practice they're different.
---
John W. C. McNabb
---
___
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
yes, this sounds good
Eric, you might want to discuss your project specifically with the
guys from Spacenoth/SoS since they try to redo the whole directory
structure and might be interested to provide their input in such a
project...
On 5/11/07, John McNabb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds reasonable to me.
On 5/11/07, Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of you know that, with encouragement from other devs, I'm doing a
cleanup and reorganization of the Wesnoth directory layout. The immediate
motivation is to make correct behavior easier for tools like wmlscope
and wmllint, but there are long-standing issues about our data layout
beneath these symptoms.
After staring at the layout for a while, I think one source of
grubbiness is that we've used directories to create a sort of
half-baked package structure without making them package objects.
The way capaigns are laid out is representative; for a campaign
named Battle of Foobar there will be a Battle_of_Foobar.cfg
and a Battle_of_Foobar directory, with the directory sort of
accidentally a package by virtue of {}-inclusions in the .cfg.
I have a proposal for a small extension of preprocessor behavior to
make things cleaner.
New rule: When a directory reference like {foodir/} resolves
to a directory containing a file named %main.cfg, it is treated
as though the reference had been {foodir/%main.cfg}.
With this rule, Battle_of_Foobar.cfg can move to Battle_of_Foobar/%main.cfg.
The directory Battle_of_Foobar becomes a self-contained package. Including
it processes %main.cfg and whatever files %main.cfg chooses to include.
--
esr
___
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
--
---
In theory, theory and practice are the same,
but in practice they're different.
---
John W. C. McNabb
---
___
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
___
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
I have thought of something else that might be nice to do after each campaign is in its own directory. If references were only allowed within a campaign or to main line stuff and not cross campaign, we could make sure that removing a campaign will not break another campaign because of dependencies. This could enforce the rule that you are supposed to copy non main line objects rather than make references to them. ___ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
Bruno Wolff III schrieb: I have thought of something else that might be nice to do after each campaign is in its own directory. If references were only allowed within a campaign or to main line stuff and not cross campaign, we could make sure that removing a campaign will not break another campaign because of dependencies. This could enforce the rule that you are supposed to copy non main line objects rather than make references to them. Ehm, we are already using this policy. It will be enforced for all new content to add mainline and it is eg needed for the split debian packages. So in this matter it does not make a real difference, since we already do handle things this way. Btw, I do completely agree to restructuring things. One short proposal to work together with the soon to come campaign server changes: Devide data in some groups like campaigns_singleplayer and multiplayer where under multiplayer all the factions stuff, mp maps/scenarios and (once they come) mp campaigns reside. The same structure should be used inside the userdata dir to make it in the end easier to see what the installed content is. So a new faction (with all needed for it) would go to userdata/multiplayer/factions/newfaction, where a normal campaign would do to userdata/campaign_singleplayer/newcampaign and so on. I think some structure like this would help users that only want to get rid of the mp content but keep the usercampaigns and makes it easier to see what which UMC is meant to be. Cheers, Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic ___ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Directory objects -- proposed change in preprocessor behavior
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 21:14:36 +0200, Nils Kneuper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Wolff III schrieb: I have thought of something else that might be nice to do after each campaign is in its own directory. If references were only allowed within a campaign or to main line stuff and not cross campaign, we could make sure that removing a campaign will not break another campaign because of dependencies. This could enforce the rule that you are supposed to copy non main line objects rather than make references to them. Ehm, we are already using this policy. It will be enforced for all new content to add mainline and it is eg needed for the split debian packages. So in this matter it does not make a real difference, since we already do handle things this way. I knew we had a policy of that is how things are supposed to work. What I was suggesting was that this policy be enforced in code. It might be that there is a relatively new feature doing this. I know Eric has been doing all sorts of clean up checks and of his tools may catch campaigns that do this when they are run, but that isn't the same as having wesnoth do it. Having the check in wesnoth will let campaign developers notice the problem before they try to submit their campaign (or changes to an existing campaign). ___ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
