16 Dec
2004
16 Dec
'04
5:19 p.m.
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
18 Dec
18 Dec
9:45 p.m.
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
10:28 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.com
[mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com] On Behalf Of Emanuele Aliberti
Sent: 18. december 2004 22:45
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Tree Changes
Alex Ionescu 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.
Casper
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
10:53 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.com
[mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com] On Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
Sent: 18. december 2004 23:28
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Tree Changes
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
Right, didn't see that.
Casper
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.
19 Dec
19 Dec
9:21 a.m.
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
7214
days inactive
7217
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alex Ionescu -
Casper Hornstrup -
Emanuele Aliberti