Re: [Libreoffice] build or rawbuild dir?

Hi Sebastian,

On 2010-11-01 at 09:36 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:

> > The idea is to forget the 'build' repository in the normal process, and
> > let it only for the documentation, and for the distro maintainers - if
> > they need it at all.  'bootstrap' would become the new main repo, and
> > would have the following layout:
>
> May I chime in again? Sorry for being pedantic, but I want it done right
> before we are got stuck in another "historical reasons" situation.

More than 'historical reasons', we are stuck here in 'how we want to
have that organized when everything is settled down' :-)

The ideal we are heading to is that all the repos are on the same level,
and buildable separately.  I mean, eg. the 'writer' repo should not be
in some subdir of 'bootstrap', but in the same one:

/bootstrap
/artwork
/libs-gui
...
/writer

And if you have the build dependencies of eg. writer (eg. from your
Linux distro), you shouldn't need any of the other repositories at all,
to be able to build it.

The change I'd like to do now is the first step regarding this - to get
rid of the 'build' repo.  The second one is to finish the 'split build'
the way outlined above.

Why not to rename 'bootstrap' to a new 'build'?  Renaming repos is a
PITA - consider someone that has the current 'build' repo, and pulls
from freedestkop after having 'bootstrap' renamed to 'build' - he'd get
terrible conflicts and git warnings; worse - he could resolve them,
merge, and push back, which would get all the 'build' history into what
is now 'bootstrap' - something that we really don't want :-(

Either way - what I'd recommend it actually to clone 'bootstrap' as
'master', like:

git clone ssh://git.freedesktop.org/git/libreoffice/bootstrap master

And for the branches

git clone ssh://git.freedesktop.org/git/libreoffice/bootstrap
libreoffice-3-3-1

[when available ;-)] etc.  So, I hope the 'bootstrap' part is not that
important in all this, and anyway, it will get more substance rather
sooner than later.

Anyway - if too annoying, let's focus on this later; I mostly need
feedback on the layout itself, the naming is orthogonal to this at this
stage, I think.

Regards,
Kendy