Re: Why naming folders TYPE_Package indstead of TYPE/Package?

On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 16:16, Jonas Delfs wrote: > Hi, > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:04:14 +0100, Jonas Delfs wrote: > > >Why not keep the samme structure in pear/ as php4/pear/ had? > > > > That's answered in the FAQ and has been discussed on the list > > for several times in the past: > > Oh - I'm sorry. I assumed the answer wasn't there because I've actually read > the whole FAQ (some time ago). > But I still have a question: What advantages is there in allowing a strange > structure in a package-directory? Why not keep it as it is going to be > installed and take the advantage of having the same structure in CVS and on > a server when installed? (CVS update) The structure of the CVS server has really nothing to do with the structure of installed files. The top-level directory is the package name (packages are PEAR projects). Each package is released and installed independently. - Stig