Danek Duvall wrote:
> So I've already had my internal stab at this, and it looks better, IMHO,
> but a couple more comments ...
>
>> data/autoconf/
>> xorg-autoconf-macros
>
> What's in here? (And if you say "autoconf macros", I'm walkin' downstairs
> and kickin' your ass.) Would other packages depend on this in any way?
> Are they generic to xorg, or do they include bits that are specific to
> particular components?
They are needed for people who want to run autoconf on the configure.ac
in an X.Org source package to rebuild the configure script. People
building packages like GNOME that depend on X.Org packages don't need
it - the vast majority of the world doesn't need it. It's not specific
to any one package though, but something used by all packages. Frankly,
I'm not sure if we'll even package it or just make people who want to
develop X.Org packages get it from X.Org, but I was including all the
upstream packages in the list, so we'd figure out names if we did decide
to ship them.
> I think having "autoconf" in two places is redundant. How about
> data/autoconf/xorg?
That works. Is "data" the right category for autoconf macros?
>> documentation/
>> xorg-docs [docs unaffiliated with specific software packages,
>> mostly the contents of /usr/X11/share/man5 ]
>
> Similar comment about duplication here: "documentation/xorg"? Or
> "docs/xorg"?
I'd just taken the upstream package name there - docs/xorg or docs/xorg-misc
works for me - is the category going to be "documentation" or "docs"?
(Doesn't Stephen have a rule about non-plural category names that docs would
violate?)
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
