Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> - Yes, I'm putting this into $SRC/cmd, rather than $SRC/lib. I could
>>> put it in $SRC/lib. But frankly, I don't think cmd vs. lib makes
>>> sense for SFW.
>> I think it still does, just as in ON. It provides a higher level way of
>> separating the depencies just as it does in ON, which can simplify
>> things a bit. Though it's certainly ok to have exceptions (things
>> like bzip2/gcc which generate libraries in sfw's cmd, and ON which
>> has linker world in cmd/sgs :)
>
> Hmmm, I don't quite buy it. SFW components are a lot more discrete than
> ON components. And many will install library and executable content
> both.
Like I said, that can happen in ON too - it's just that it's easier to
make people split their code between lib and cmd in such cases, and it's
not easy or friendly to have folks in sfw split that code up. But
it still can be a useful split, or at least useful enough it's not worth
changing to me.
>
> (I'm not even sure that we could say that "Consolidation Private" means
> all that much within SFW because of this.
Perhaps, but that seems a different issue, and would apply to open
source things in many other consolidations than sfw. Probably for
sfw it's worse because since we generally run 'configure' or the
equivalent and let it find and use what it wants, it may find
things it really shouldn't use from other consolidations. But of
course that's where the RE should come in, determining if what it
found is really allowable given the stability levels.
> There's no single cscope DB
> for all the code in the SFW consolidation either.)
well, long long ago I used to do that for the companion cd
workspace. I would extract all the tar files and run cscope on it.
I have thought about doing that for sfw, but have not because
- cscope chokes on some of the source there now, so either
it needs to be updated or we wouldn't want to run it over
the extracted source
- opengrok now exists and seems more useful given it helps
everyone not just SWAN folks.
but you can try to convince me to just run it over the gate as it
is now, that might not be too hard.
>> But I'm happy to see someone worrying about flag days :)
>
> Well, I've been burned by build flag days I've inadvertently caused in
> ON... :) I'm trying to learn! :)
hehe
Mike
