apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject RE: apr-util comments
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:51:59 GMT
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:32 PM
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:38:45PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >...
> > Why do we add the additional complexity of a src/ directory within apr-util?
> > Can't we keep to the same simplicity as apr itself?  Suggesting, therefore,
> > that we aught to have apr-util/buckets rather than apr-util/src/buckets.
> > The extra branch doesn't accomplish anything for us, and makes it harder
> > to jump between repositories.
> Two reasons:
> 1) we locate all the objects to add to the library using "find". it is
>    easier to find them under "src/" rather than enumerating each source
>    subdir. We can't use "." because that would pick up "test/".
> 2) to keep the top-level cleaner. we have eight groups of functionality in
>    apr-util/src/. tossing those up a level would make that a bit more
>    confusing. Currently, the top-level has: build/, docs/, include/, src/,
>    and test/. Each is obvious in purpose.

Compelling, but can we agree to agree between apr and apr-util?

I'm +.5 for applying this same structure to apr (by the benefits 
you cite above.)

I'm -1 for leaving things as they are, and would live with apr-util following
the structure of apr (and that is a veto, my head was spinning the other day).

Anyone else care to vote for the src/package/ or simply package/ structure?

View raw message