Re: New package system design draft

dv> Pete Ware <ware(a)cis.ohio-state.edu&gt; writes: dv> That's a good point. Perhaps the most important argument against dv> having all files related to a package under a single directory. There's dv> already a problem with the lib-src subdir, and will be another one when we dv> start having packages with C modules in them. Yes. I'll consider this for the revision. dv> It would really be a pity not to fix this problem in the Great Package dv> Overhaul. The fact is that most of the packages subdir already exist in the dv> GNU Coding Standards. dv> - etc, info, man exist. dv> - lisp should go under .../share dv> - lib-src actually belongs to libexec. dv> - lib could then be used for C modules. dv> So I think instead of having a single directory for a particular dv> package, we could replicate this hierarchy under all needed standard dv> directories, with the same naming policy. This would destroy a large part of the rationale for the proposal. I think this high-level organizational question is better not touched upon by the package system at all. GNU Coding Standards are one thing, but few software packages adhere to them, and there are a gazillion other such standards. Few packaging problems are satisfactorily solved by directory organization alone, and the main thrust of the draft is to make things as independent as possible from it. You can mainly try to not let it get in the way too much. The approach of the GNU Standards seems to be to move architecture-specific stuff pretty deep into the hierarchy, across disjoint portions of it. Probably a workable approach is to distinguish architectures under <whatever the name of the directory>, and let the high-level directory structure just do what it needs to do. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla