Re: Debian source tree

[quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu (Daniel Quinlan)]

I think that when examining the source tree we shouldn't necessarily try
to emulate BSD, but determine the most appropriate arrangement for our
particular circumstances.

Debian gathers source code from the GNU fileutils, Rik Faith's
util-linux package, and numerous other sources.  Most of these are
packaged by function (i.e., flex, groff, grep, etc.) and *not* by
destination.

I have given this a bit of thought and I now believe we are better off
utilizing with a less stringent arrangement -- don't fight what we have,
but work with it, perhaps as follows:

../system
       |- fileutils-1.3
       +- util-linux-1.5

../fs
       |- ext2fs-0.4
       +- minixfs

../text
       |- flex-2.38
       |- grep-1.6
       +- groff-1.08

../xxx
       |- yyy
       +- zzz

I realize that this packaging is not so perfect nor is it "neat" (some
things will inevitably cross-over), but I think it offers the most
long-term usefulness to most users and administrators.  If I wish to
update groff in my source tree, I need not rely on Debian.  I merely
remove the old directory, ./configure in the new one, and I should be
okay.  This makes much more sense and I think it is something we would
all be much happier with.

If you are concerned with figuring out where "ls" is, then we can build
a simple index, rather than torture ourselves trying to look like BSD's
(quote fine) arrangement.  BSD was arranging their *own* code and they
had utter control over how it was packaged and arranged.  We are not BSD.

Dan

--
Daniel Quinlan  <quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu>