Tree Changes

[Alex Ionescu]

Hi,

Eric and Hartmut's suggestions to have static in lib and dlls in dll 
have been widely accepted, and a new idea to have 3rdparty lib/dll 
folder was also accepted.

So here's the new version : 
http://mok.lvcm.com/cgi-bin/reactos/roswiki?New_Tree_Structure.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Emanuele Aliberti]

Alex Ionescu wrote:
> Eric and Hartmut's suggestions to have static in lib and dlls in dll 
> have been widely accepted, and a new idea to have 3rdparty lib/dll 
> folder was also accepted.
>
> So here's the new version : 
> http://mok.lvcm.com/cgi-bin/reactos/roswiki?New_Tree_Structure.

I added a note to the top of that page: please feel free to remove it. I 
tried to sum my ho about the source tree revision. In short: the source 
tree revision should follow on an agreed upon system design.

Emanuele Aliberti

[Casper Hornstrup]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Emanuele Aliberti
> Sent: 18. december 2004 22:45
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Tree Changes
>
> Alex Ionescu wrote:
> > Eric and Hartmut's suggestions to have static in lib and
>
> dlls in dll
> > have been widely accepted, and a new idea to have 3rdparty lib/dll 
> > folder was also accepted.
> >
> > So here's the new version : 
> > http://mok.lvcm.com/cgi-bin/reactos/roswiki?New_Tree_Structure.
>
> I added a note to the top of that page: please feel free to 
> remove it. I tried to sum my ho about the source tree 
> revision. In short: the source tree revision should follow on 
> an agreed upon system design.
>
> Emanuele Aliberti

Like in CVS, after the conversion, the other subsystems will get their
own Subversion module. Ie.

/trunk/reactos
/trunk/os2
/trunk/posix

This require developers of the OS/2 and posix subsystems to check out both
the os2/posix and reactos modules, but it makes it possible for the Win32
developers (which are still the majority) to only checkout a single module
in order to build a bootable CD. Here, I assume that we can all agree to
move freeldr to /trunk/reactos/freeldr after the conversion.

Casper

[Alex Ionescu]

Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> Here, I assume that we can all agree to
> move freeldr to /trunk/reactos/freeldr after the conversion.
>
> Casper

It's in /trunk/reactos/boot/freeldr with the new tree design. People 
liked that, and I Think it's a good idea too.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Casper Hornstrup]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> Sent: 18. december 2004 23:28
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Tree Changes
>
> Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> > Here, I assume that we can all agree to move freeldr to 
> > /trunk/reactos/freeldr after the conversion.
> >
> > Casper
>
> It's in /trunk/reactos/boot/freeldr with the new tree design. 
> People liked that, and I Think it's a good idea too.

Right, didn't see that.

Casper

[Emanuele Aliberti]

Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> Like in CVS, after the conversion, the other subsystems will get their
> own Subversion module. Ie.
>
> /trunk/reactos
> /trunk/os2
> /trunk/posix
>
> This require developers of the OS/2 and posix subsystems to check out both
> the os2/posix and reactos modules, but it makes it possible for the Win32
> developers (which are still the majority) to only checkout a single module
> in order to build a bootable CD. Here, I assume that we can all agree to
> move freeldr to /trunk/reactos/freeldr after the conversion.

I forgot that: I think it is fine having separate modules for optional 
subsystems and requiring having the core system too to build them. The 
problem I spot in the main module is mixing core os and win32 pieces. As 
I said, there are two ways: a) forget NT and say ROS is a Win32 
reimplementation (you don't need separating native and Win32 CSR/GUI 
modules); b) remember ntos is the system and that it can run *without* 
Win32, therefore make apparent there are two distinct pieces of software 
in the 'reactos' module.

Emanuele Aliberti