[CODE][CLEANUP]: getting rid of the 3 layer office directory structure

[Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

we currently still have a complex but not necessary 3 layer directory
structure in the office that makes many things more complicate and is
completely unnecessary.

The reason why we have this is historical and not longer relevant and
the question is if we want to get rid of this for our next release?

Our office installation directory structure becomes cleaner and more
straight forward and we can eliminate some potential conflicts with
another derivative product that still hijacked some of our installation
bits (names).

This task seems to be easy on the first look but is more complicate and
more work on the second.

1. files and directories (URE, base layer) have to be installed in new
places, we haver to think about the structure.
2. we have to check library link flags which are currently different for
libraries from the different layers.
3. we have to check and consolidate many configuration files where we
have entries to find the related files/entries in the different layers.
4. we have to check some bootstrap processes and have to check that they
work correct
5. we have to do very careful testing, testing, testing ...
6. ...

Any opinions or volunteers who have interest to help with such a
project? If we decide to work on it, we have to start immediately to
have enough time for testing.

Juergen

Re: [CODE][CLEANUP]: getting rid of the 3 layer office directory structure

[janI <ja...@apache.org>]

+1, the idea of making the structure is something I would like to see.

Would love to help but I am hung up on translate-vm and a couple of other
things.

Jan I.

On 23 January 2013 09:31, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> we currently still have a complex but not necessary 3 layer directory
> structure in the office that makes many things more complicate and is
> completely unnecessary.
>
> The reason why we have this is historical and not longer relevant and
> the question is if we want to get rid of this for our next release?
>
> Our office installation directory structure becomes cleaner and more
> straight forward and we can eliminate some potential conflicts with
> another derivative product that still hijacked some of our installation
> bits (names).
>
> This task seems to be easy on the first look but is more complicate and
> more work on the second.
>
> 1. files and directories (URE, base layer) have to be installed in new
> places, we haver to think about the structure.
> 2. we have to check library link flags which are currently different for
> libraries from the different layers.
> 3. we have to check and consolidate many configuration files where we
> have entries to find the related files/entries in the different layers.
> 4. we have to check some bootstrap processes and have to check that they
> work correct
> 5. we have to do very careful testing, testing, testing ...
> 6. ...
>
> Any opinions or volunteers who have interest to help with such a
> project? If we decide to work on it, we have to start immediately to
> have enough time for testing.
>
> Juergen
>
>
>

Re: [CODE][CLEANUP]: getting rid of the 3 layer office directory structure

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Jürgen Schmidt 
...
> 
> On 1/23/13 4:29 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>>  Da: Jürgen Schmidt 
>> 
>>> 
>>>  Hi,
>>> 
>>>  we currently still have a complex but not necessary 3 layer directory
>>>  structure in the office that makes many things more complicate and is
>>>  completely unnecessary.
>>> 
>>>  The reason why we have this is historical and not longer relevant and
>>>  the question is if we want to get rid of this for our next release?
>>> 
>> 
>>  It sounds like a good idea. The one thing I wonder about is if
>>  it shall cause trouble to the code being merged but you know
>>  the answer to that better that me. ;).
>> 
...
> 
> I am talking about an office installation not the svn directory structure.
> 


OK; it is a very invasive change but if we have to do it (for some linux
distributions, apparently) I agree that 4.0 is the right place/moment to
do it.

Pedro.

Re: [CODE][CLEANUP]: getting rid of the 3 layer office directory structure

[Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>]

On 1/23/13 4:29 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Jürgen Schmidt 
> 
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we currently still have a complex but not necessary 3 layer directory
>> structure in the office that makes many things more complicate and is
>> completely unnecessary.
>>
>> The reason why we have this is historical and not longer relevant and
>> the question is if we want to get rid of this for our next release?
>>
> 
> It sounds like a good idea. The one thing I wonder about is if
> it shall cause trouble to the code being merged but you know
> the answer to that better that me. ;).
> 
> While here I noticed we started moving some dependent modules
> from main/ to ext_libraries/ but things like boost and stlport were
> never moved. Is there some special consideration or adjustment
> to be done to the build, or is it just a matter of doing some
> "svn move" around the base?

I am talking about an office installation not the svn directory structure.

Juergen


> 
>>
>> Any opinions or volunteers who have interest to help with such a
>> project? If we decide to work on it, we have to start immediately to
>> have enough time for testing.
>>
> 
> Not volunteering sorry, my plate is full.  
> 
> 
> Pedro.
> 

Re: [CODE][CLEANUP]: getting rid of the 3 layer office directory structure

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Jürgen Schmidt 

> 
> Hi,
> 
> we currently still have a complex but not necessary 3 layer directory
> structure in the office that makes many things more complicate and is
> completely unnecessary.
> 
> The reason why we have this is historical and not longer relevant and
> the question is if we want to get rid of this for our next release?
>

It sounds like a good idea. The one thing I wonder about is if
it shall cause trouble to the code being merged but you know
the answer to that better that me. ;).

While here I noticed we started moving some dependent modules
from main/ to ext_libraries/ but things like boost and stlport were
never moved. Is there some special consideration or adjustment
to be done to the build, or is it just a matter of doing some
"svn move" around the base?

> 
> Any opinions or volunteers who have interest to help with such a
> project? If we decide to work on it, we have to start immediately to
> have enough time for testing.
>

Not volunteering sorry, my plate is full.  


Pedro.