Some packager told as that libraries should be in some directory according too the guidelines. I checked it back then and he was right. But I don't now how heavy that counts.
It would also be easier to update several instances of web2py since the most updates will happen there. But if you say you can pass the guidelines, please do so. Because it makes it more complex than necessary. Mark On Oct 15, 7:06 pm, José L. <jredr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 oct, 13:32, Mark Breedveld <m.breedv...@solcon.nl> wrote: > > > > > You have the idea. Thanks for clearing it towards the others. > > > My guesses it we need to do both. > > Because Jose goal is general purpose and mine aswell, > > but comes with overkill in the most cases. > > > In Jose case I would suggest a slight change. > >web2py-core > >web2py-gluon > > > This has been discusses before, I recall you where in those > > discussions > > Jose.http://groups.google.com/group/web2py/browse_frm/thread/45ea4327d713b... > > >http://groups.google.com/group/web2py/browse_frm/thread/51b731d9abb52... > > > There are some other topics, search for turnkeylinux, where this is > > mentioned. > > > I recall Dimo Barsky was busy withpackagingGluon, but I've been out > > for a while. > > I don't know him, but he might help with this. > > > It was chaos post again, but I hope this one helps:p. > > > Mark, > > Thanks, but after looking for more info in the links you provided, I > have not been able to find the rationale > for a separate gluon and core packages. > > can anybody enlight me?
