tree layout (was: Re: BETA binaries...)

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:58:48AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: David Reid [mailto:dreid@jetnet.co.uk]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 8:37 AM
>...
> > I ask as if we are then
> > we should make sure the building/installing is working with our new
> > structure and decide how we install (do we change the directory
> > structure??).

Note that David is talking about the install structure... not the
source/build structure. OtherBill: your email seems to be conflating the two
layouts.

>...
> How does everyone feel about using "D:\Program Files\ASF\Apache" tree?

+1

Although it might be more correct to use ...\ASF\HTTP Server 2.0 for the
path.

Yes, this brings spaces back in, but you get the ASF grouping, and drop the
bit about "Apache" always referring to the web server.

>...
> If we want a build+binaries directory, Roy's model needs a few changes,
> or some radical overhaul of our defaults.  It's a problem burying conf
> in docs,

That is the location in the source. You can still install it to the old
location.

>...
> empty unless it's a binary install?)  I'm -1 on changing our default
> conf path to @@serverroot@@/docs/conf for the config files.

Nobody has suggested this yet.

> Similar question for cgi-bin, where is that?  In docs parallel to the
> cgi-examples?  Problem - cgi-examples is about to grow a .bat file as
> a win32 example, and we don't want that in cgi-bin under unix (nor do
> we want the test-cgi shell script in the win32 cgi-bin.  Actually, the
> batch file will be test-cgi.bat.)

cgi-bin is toast. We now have "examples". In the install tree, cgi-bin is
located in the same place as always. Whether we install the examples there
or not is debatable.

> We need to decide if we will do an Alias /manual into docs, to allow it
> in eperate magic with the http://server/ index to drop manual into the
> docroot tree.  If so, we need to modify the default conf.

I'm not sure why we need to mess around with the manual. What is the issue?

> We can't play the symlink games on win32, so we need to give these 
> issues some thought, without too many duplicate trees.  I'd like to see
> win32 roll with the unix-proper include, lib, libexec and modules trees
> so it is easier for builders.

I don't see what is needing to change... we have a new build tree, but that
doesn't imply any change whatsoever to the install tree.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/