Re: [Monotone-devel] nvm.source-tree-cleanup

[Stephen Leake]

Thomas Keller <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 03.02.2011 07:08, schrieb Stephen Leake:
>> Thomas Keller <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> There are a couple of minor issues left which kind of block the merge
>>> back to nvm, one of them is the move of some innosetup-specific
>>> resources out of src/win32 
>> 
>> I'm not clear what the issue is here. In any case, 'make
>> win32-installer' now works, does that resolve it?
>
> It was merely a little nuisance - we have the installer files in
> src/win32, but they are actually not source, but deployment-specific
> files. This is inconsequent insofar we have other distibution-specific
> files also not under src/, for example visualc/, mac/ and the like.
> Richard and me talked about that earlier on IRC and we agreed that the
> innosetup files deserve their own top level directory.

The non-source files for building the win32 installer are modpath.iss,
monotone.bmp, and monotone.iss.in. There is also related code in
Makefile.am.

For building the Unix .tar.gz, the equivalent code is in
<root>/Makefile.am, <root>/doc/Makefile.am. In larger projects, there is
typically a Makefile.am (possibly with an install target) in each
directory.

The closest equivalent to the win32 installer are packages for other
distributions. 

The Debian package source has its own branch
"mtn://code.monotone.ca/monotone?net.venge.monotone.debian".

I don't know where other Linux derivative package sources are.

The Cygwin package source is one file in
"mtn://lapo.it?it.lapo.cygwin.ports" (see INSTALL_windows_cygwin.txt).
If we moved that into the nvm tree, where would it go?

I'm not strongly opposed to moving those three files to
<root>/win32_install (do you have a suggested name?), but I don't see
the "consistency" argument. 

>>> and another one deals with HTML documentation. 
>> 
>> I'm not clear what the issue is here. In any case, 'make html' now
>> works, and builds both doc/monotone.html and doc/html/*, does that
>> resolve it?
>
> Richard and you did a lot in this respect and probably fixed the issue
> in the meantime. I'll review the latest changes later on, I was a bit
> busy over the last couple of days...

Ok.

> Many thanks for all your work, Stephe and Richard!

You're welcome; it's been fun :).

-- 
-- Stephe