Account confirmers, Anti-spam team, canmove, Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
4,083
edits
SeaMonkey:Suite Directory Layout: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SeaMonkey:Suite Directory Layout (view source)
Revision as of 02:28, 7 February 2006
, 7 February 2006→IRC discussion snippets
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== IRC discussion snippets == | == IRC discussion snippets == | ||
[2006-01-17 07:00 PST] - topic: suite/ organization | === [2006-01-17 07:00 PST] - topic: suite/ organization === | ||
<br><KaiRo> bsmedberg: you seemed to have a preety good image in mind when discusssing some "move to suite/" stuff a few months back... now that plans are getting more concrete on our side, can you give us some good rules to follow for the directory structure, so that we are a "good citizen" in your eyes? | <br><KaiRo> bsmedberg: you seemed to have a preety good image in mind when discusssing some "move to suite/" stuff a few months back... now that plans are getting more concrete on our side, can you give us some good rules to follow for the directory structure, so that we are a "good citizen" in your eyes? | ||
<br><bsmedberg> KaiRo: organize things according to function, not according to "how it's built" | <br><bsmedberg> KaiRo: organize things according to function, not according to "how it's built" | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
<br><bsmedberg> 3) have dir/classic and dir/modern | <br><bsmedberg> 3) have dir/classic and dir/modern | ||
<br><bsmedberg> 2) is probably best | <br><bsmedberg> 2) is probably best | ||
=== [2006-02-06 18:00 PST] - topic: locales/ structure === | |||
<br><KaiRo> gandalf: could you give me some clue about what structure we need for source L10n? we've been discussing if it needs to be suite /locales/ or could be suite/<component>/locales/ as well, and I've been wondering what implications that might have for the dir structure in /l10n repository... could you shed some light on that? | |||
<br><gandalf> hmm | |||
<br><gandalf> in your case... | |||
<br><gandalf> KaiRo: what are the chances that someone will want to build seamonkey without a mail? | |||
<br><gandalf> or browser? | |||
<br><gandalf> or chatzilla? | |||
<br><gandalf> or another component? | |||
<br><KaiRo> gandalf: well, we want to be able to do that... on the other hand, I'd probably like to ship the same en-US.jar in all cases... chatzilla is in a seperate structure anyways | |||
<br><gandalf> so, I see no reason to put locales in components | |||
<br><gandalf> rather use locales as one of the components | |||
<br><gandalf> so | |||
<br><gandalf> suite/locales/browser/ | |||
<br><gandalf> erm | |||
<br><gandalf> suite/locales/en-US/chrome | |||
<br><KaiRo> suite/locales/en-US/chrome/browser actually :) | |||
<br><KaiRo> (and others in the same structure, of course) | |||
<br><gandalf> yes | |||
<br><KaiRo> I'd just like to know what path change it might have in /l10n if we'd like to use suite/browser/locales/en-US/chrome instead (not that I myself want it, but I have to explain it to the others) | |||
<br><gandalf> well, if you'd switch to this | |||
<br><gandalf> it's not a big deal for localizers | |||
<br><gandalf> they'll just to ./ab-CD/suite/browser/chrome/ instead of ./ab-CD/suite/chrome/browser | |||
<br><gandalf> but | |||
<<br>gandalf> it would make a pain for you to maintain l10n module code | |||
<br><gandalf> etc. more locale makefiles | |||
<br><gandalf> etc. | |||
<br><KaiRo> gandalf: true... and separate jar.mn files... but some developers would actually like that better | |||
<br><gandalf> I'm trying to figure out possible cons | |||
<br><KaiRo> thanks... I for myself still feel better with suite/locales but not everyone is sure of that... | |||
<br><gandalf> ok | |||
<br><gandalf> what about strings shared between components? | |||
<br><gandalf> where those would land? | |||
<br><KaiRo> gandalf: that might even be spread across multiple directories, most will have the related XUl in suite/common/ though | |||
<br><gandalf> ah, ok | |||
<br><gandalf> so suite/common/locales ? | |||
<br><gandalf> because otherwise, if you'll not build a component, you're dead | |||
<br><KaiRo> gandalf: our directory structure is defined by http://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey:Suite_Directory_Layout - but you might note that we don't have concrete stuff there yet for locales | |||
<br><KaiRo> gandalf: sure, suite/common/locales would exist then... maybe others as well though, as suite/branding/locales or so | |||
<br><gandalf> In my opinion it's too much splitting | |||
<br><gandalf> locales is a module | |||
<br><gandalf> and I'd like to think of it like that | |||
<br><gandalf> of course if we have optional components that are enough big to have it's own component dir and have a lot of l10n, those should use it's own locales dir | |||
<br><gandalf> but usually | |||
<br><gandalf> product/locales is ok | |||
<br><KaiRo> Id feel better with that as well... OTOH, having all browser files in suite/borwser and all branding stuff in suite/branding has its good things as well | |||
<br><gandalf> we use flock/locales in Flock | |||
<br><gandalf> but we're way smaller than Seamonkey | |||
<br><KaiRo> suite will build multiple locales/ dirs from all over the tree anyways, as we'll have all the core files, editor files, eventually chatzilla/venkman/inspector (what way ever they'll go in the future), possibly calendar - and last not least toolkit, once we'll use it | |||
<br><KaiRo> (add reporter to the extensions-like crowd) | |||
[...] | |||
<br><KaiRo> gandalf: but to come back, the main argument against suite/<component>/locales/ is that it's more complicated in our original /mozilla tree, right? | |||
<br><gandalf> yes | |||
<br><KaiRo> ok, good to know | |||