incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: proposed new directory structure for future releases
Date Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:08:02 GMT
On 8/23/12 11:37 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/23/2012 01:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 08/23/2012 10:02 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, RGB ES<rgb.mldc@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> 2012/8/23 Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Way back in late April, Juergen proposed a new directory structure for
>>>>> release packs than what we have now which is essentially:
>>>>>
>>>>> /stable/VERSION/<en-US items>
>>>>> /localized/<lang abbreviation>/VERSION/<lang items>
>>>>>
>>>>> there are some other areas in SF as well and I don't know if they're
>>>>> still
>>>>> being used
>>>>>
>>>>> Could we restart the discussion, or just again send the proposed
>>>>> structure,
>>>>> on what the "ideal" structure would look like so we could get to
>>>>> work on
>>>>> modifying the download scripts? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> MzK
>>>>>
>>>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>>>>      take it or leave it. "
>>>>>                                     -- Buddy Hackett
>>>>
>>>> Warning: Layman comment following.
>>>>
>>>> Even if en-US is the base for all the other builds, I see no need to
>>>> completely separate it from the rest. IMO, a structure like
>>>>
>>>> /stable/VERSION/<lang abbreviation>/etcetera
>>>>
>>>> were<lang abbreviation>  includes en-US at the same level of all the
>>>> other localizations would be perfectly clear to anyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> This weird split complicates scripting operations on the tree.
>>>
>>> We could probably also eliminate the base of "/stable".  We don't
>>> release unstable code, do we?
> 
> correct, and I think the schema that RGB currently proposes without the
> "/stable" is what Juergen basically proposed if memory serves.
> (I'm too lazy to go look for it. :/ )
> 
>>
>> I don't know if it's wanted by us or allowed by ASF:
>>
>> We could release Beta versions or RCs in a different dir than stable/.
>>
>> Then it would make sense to keep it. Otherwise you are right.
> 
> Right now, since we are not releasing "betas" and I don't see this
> happening in the future given the ASF definition of "release", we have
> no need for a "/stable" vs anything else.

more or less but with going back to my proposal I think Rob made a good
proposal with some minimal but useful differentiation. The only thing I
woudl change is src = source because we already have it ;-)

/ooo/<VERSION>/source
/ooo/<VERSION>/bin/<LANG>/
/ooo/<VERSION>/bin/SDK/

> 
>>
>>> At a level higher we have another split, between source and binaries,
>>> where binaries are in "/files" and source is in VERSION.
>>>
>>> So:
>>>
>>> /ooo/3.4.1/source here
>>> /ooo/files/stable/de/3.4.1/binaries here
>>>
>>> This might  be harmonized as:
>>>
>>> /ooo/VERSION/src
>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/LANG/
>>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/SDK
> 
> yes. Hopefully Juergen will weigh in soonish.
> 

not really necessary, I think we are more or less all on the same track ;-)

Juergen (who is moving slowly over in vacation mode)


> 
>>
>> Or just
>>
>> /ooo/VERSION/
>>
>> to get the most flat structure.
>>
>> Maybe
>>
>> /ooo/VERSION/src/
>> /ooo/VERSION/bin/
>>
>> if it's needed to separate source and binary files.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message