Bruno Haible wrote: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Refactoring seems like a good thing. Your proposed two modules/ >> directory split didn't strike me as the obvious way to go, but I >> haven't really thought about it. > > Yes, a categorization according to topic, like James proposes, was > also my first thought. But some modules are hard to classify this way > (would you put 'clean-temp' into the same group as 'atexit' or as the > filesystem functions?).
and also wrote: > James Youngman wrote: >> > Perhaps something like this? >> > >> > posix - for implementing POSIX functionality on broken systems >> > glibc - for gnulib's implementation of functions available on GNU >> > systems but not posix (i.e. for things we should sometimes sync with >> > glibc) > > This will increase the lookup time for someone who is not very familiar > with standards. For example, would you look up 'strndup' in the posix or > glibc directory (knowing that 'strncpy' is in POSIX)? Would you look up > 'iswblank' in the posix or glibc directory (knowing that the Linux man page > of 'iswblank' says that it's a GNU extension)? You'd look up "strndup" in the alpabetized list of everything. That list would tell you to find the source in posix or glibc or even a gl-123 directory. Partition them by what is convenient for maintenance and keep a generated cross reference. Likely some tweak on the MODULES.html.sh file. Maybe also, each partition could use a few words about the nature of the contained modules :). That would help someone wanting to peruse the gnulib trying to determine what useful stuff might be available. (*I'd* be able to skip the crypto stuff, for example.) Thank you all. By the way, someday pretty soon I'll polish up the map-a-text-file module I have and offer it up for inclusion. Cheers - Bruce
