3.3 build tree

[cm...@yahoo.com]

> GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> 
> > And +1 for TC 3.x branch.
> 
> Yes, please. =)

Not so fast, please :-)

There are scripts and people using the current style.

-0 on changing 3.x: 
  I think the sources and binaries shouldn't be in the same directory
tree ( look at RedHat /usr/src hierarchy, look at gcc/make/etc style,
etc). Of course, it's easy to override whatever default - and the only
question is which will be the default. If most people prefer the "build
files in src" - that's fine, I'll not -1 it. 

-1 on changing 3.x in the next 2 weeks - I just got the nightly to
run/test/retest tomcat in various configurations and I want to have it
running for a while before the world changes. 

-- 
Costin

Re: 3.3 build tree

[Remy Maucherat <re...@betaversion.org>]

Quoting cmanolache@yahoo.com:

> I can say the same about building in the source directory... It just
> feels
> wrong and ugly ( kind of like having .class and .java in the same
> directory, instead of using javac -d ). 

Same here, I hate that too.
Since most people involed with Tomcat seem to like it better, then I guess I'll 
have to get used to it.

Remy

Re: 3.3 build tree

[cm...@yahoo.com]

> I see what you are saying, that a "make install" usually creates the files
> in etc or opt rather and not in the source directory. I guess I look at
> "build" as more equivalent to "make", because I ususally just copy the
> resulting directory structure from build to the production location
> manually.

Take a look at any RedHat ( or any similar, RPM-based linux system):
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/my-package
/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/my-package

Not that RedHat is doing it the "right" way - it's just a valid way to do
things that keeps the source clean.

> While the proposed new solution may not completely be the *nix standard,
> it is, IMHO, a little better than the current method inasmuch as it is not
> recursing up the directory structure. That has always struck me as a
> little unsafe for reasons that i, admittedly, cannot fully quantify (just
> a feeling). My opinion would be that the new structure be the default. I

I can say the same about building in the source directory... It just feels
wrong and ugly ( kind of like having .class and .java in the same
directory, instead of using javac -d ). 


> know that there are enough scripts in place that it would be a subtle pain
> for some, but there always seems to be something to change between
> releases anyway :-)

I would rather change java code... 


-- 
Costin

Re: 3.3 build tree

[Christopher Cain <cc...@mhsoftware.com>]

cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:

> > GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >
> > > And +1 for TC 3.x branch.
> >
> > Yes, please. =)
>
> Not so fast, please :-)
>
> There are scripts and people using the current style.
>
> -0 on changing 3.x:
>   I think the sources and binaries shouldn't be in the same directory
> tree ( look at RedHat /usr/src hierarchy, look at gcc/make/etc style,
> etc). Of course, it's easy to override whatever default - and the only
> question is which will be the default. If most people prefer the "build
> files in src" - that's fine, I'll not -1 it.

I see what you are saying, that a "make install" usually creates the files
in etc or opt rather and not in the source directory. I guess I look at
"build" as more equivalent to "make", because I ususally just copy the
resulting directory structure from build to the production location
manually.

While the proposed new solution may not completely be the *nix standard,
it is, IMHO, a little better than the current method inasmuch as it is not
recursing up the directory structure. That has always struck me as a
little unsafe for reasons that i, admittedly, cannot fully quantify (just
a feeling). My opinion would be that the new structure be the default. I
know that there are enough scripts in place that it would be a subtle pain
for some, but there always seems to be something to change between
releases anyway :-)

> -1 on changing 3.x in the next 2 weeks - I just got the nightly to
> run/test/retest tomcat in various configurations and I want to have it
> running for a while before the world changes.
>
> --
> Costin

I can certainly sympathize with that. Obviously this is more of a
symmantical build thing than real functionality, so I don't really
consider it a priority by any means. Even if the community decides that
the new structure is the way to go, I don't think it makes much of a
difference until a (possible) 3.3 release is upon us. If and when the
change is made, I will volunteer to patch the docs accordingly.

Regards,

Christopher