[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Debian source tree



I'd like to know what everyone thinks about the source tree.  Would it
be better to arrange it ala BSD:

(If you want an example, look in /pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src at
agate.berkeley.edu.)

bin:
 bin/arch
 bin/bash
 [...]

In other words, a subdirectory for each binary in bin containing the
source, and similar directories for sbin, usr.bin and usr.sbin... etc,
etc.  The problem with this approach is that it seperates much that
comes together as one `package' (the GNU fileutils, for example), but
it is a much nicer layout and it is easier for users to browse.  It
is harder to maintain, but I'm willing to do it.

If you like this approach, do you have any suggestions as to how to
arrange the libraries that some packages create and link with the
object code (i.e., like the GNU fileutils)?  This one has me stumped.
Separating the libraries is a possibility, but then there's the
possibility of someone trying to compile dd without libfl.a and
wondering why it doesn't succeed.

The other alternative is to make the packages available as I got them
(i.e., fileutils-3.9.tar.gz) with the changes I've made, of course.  I
like this approach much less, but it would be easier to maintain.

A mixture of the two (which is what I've been playing around with as
of late) requires too many symlinks.  I'm starting over from scratch,
and I'd like to hear a few opinions before I work any further.

Due to this, the source tree may not be ready by 0.92.  I want to do
it right the first time.  Please let me know what you think!

Ian


Reply to: