From: Jim Freeze <jim@...>
Date: 2003-05-29T09:19:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Project Directory Structure

On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at  1:01:46 +0900, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Freeze" <jim@freeze.org>
> Subject: Re: Project Directory Structure
> 
> >  I know that total consensus will never be achieved, and
> >  that is not the goal.
> 
> Right. :)
> 
> I like the way you're thinking, and I'll probably
> settle on your standard myself. But I have a few 
> questions. See below.
>   
> >  So, unless there is a large uprising, I think that my
> >  simple skeleton is complete is provides a good usage
> >  guide. YMMV.
> > 
> > ----------
> > Below is a suggested directory hierarchy.
> > All of the directories, except possibly test/ ;),
> > are optional. Most of the filenames listed
> > are optional but are listed for consistent
> > spelling and capitalization.
> > 
> > CHANGELOG
> > INSTALL 
> 
> This is installation instructions, right?
 
Yes

> > LICENSE
> > Manifest
> 
> A simple list of files or what?
 
Yes. Actually, I read on ruby-talk where one of
the installers requires this file to exist, not
that it looks inside the file. I would like
to confirm this fact, but have not hunted it down.
Also, I would like to change it to MANIFEST if
possible.

> > README    # if multi lang, README.en, README.ja, etc
> 
> How differs from INSTALL?
> 

I usually see README's and not INSTALLs. The cases
where I see INSTALL is when the install procedure 
is involved.

I think READMEs are a catch-all like Apple's
'Open Me First' type of documentation.

> > TODO      # optional
> > setup.rb
> 
> OK, is setup.rb a kind of standard? Are you referring
> to that script that I'm forced to invoke three times?

Yes. It seems there are two standards, setup.rb and install.rb.
I actually just did a quick check on the packages that
I have installed, and it looks like I have about 60% install.rb
and 40% setup.rb, so I guess that I guessed wrong. :)
Anyway, install/setup are just placeholders for an
installer.

> Does it invoke install.rb, or is that an alternative,
> or what?
> 
> As I've never done any "real" packaging in Ruby myself,
> I've never paid much attention to the consensus.
 
 Same. And things seem to be changing all the time
 in this area.

> [snip]
> 
> The rest I think I understand OK.
> 

  Good. Thanks for your comments.

-- 
Jim Freeze
----------
If you are a fatalist, what can you do about it?
		-- Ann Edwards-Duff