Re: Re: revision to the standard that would make me happy

Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > -- Greg Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote > (on Tuesday, 07 July 2009, 11:13 AM -0500): > >> Travis Swicegood wrote: >> > > <snip> > > >> Also, the change I'm proposing is minor, not a colossal complex >> revision. I am saying that instead of forcing this directory structure: >> >> pear2/ >> package1 >> package2 >> package1_subcomponent >> package1_another_thing >> >> it allows developers *at their discretion* to decide that optional >> sub-components can remain within their parent package: >> >> pear2/ >> package1 >> package1/subcomponent >> package1/another/thing >> package2 >> >> Is that really so terribly difficult to understand that it kills off the >> future of any easily understandable standards document? >> > > I think you misread the recommendations, honestly. The example you have > actually fits perfectly within the recommendations, as we specifically > had verbiage indicating a package/component could also have > subpackages/subcomponents, nested arbitrarily deep. My recollection is > that this was actually the *recommended* way of delivering subcomponents > (versus using the nested_virtual_namespace notation). How they are > packaged later for distribution is entirely left to the project/package > maintainer, and likely better left to a build script anyways. Interesting :). Travis? Is this your understanding of what was intended as well? I was speaking to another developer present at the meeting the other day who understood it to mean "there are no subpackages, just top-level packages", which is why I've continued to press forward. Either way, the recommendation/standard/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is not explicit enough on this point. If what you say is indeed the intended reading, then I have no major complaints, just some minor ones that can be worked out I'm sure. Greg