Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] CVS re-org

[Nic Ferrier]

Alex Lancaster <address@hidden> writes:

> I think we did agree.  By the way, thanks for the fix for 
> "texinfo-doclet", however the "gjdoc" and "cp-tools" modules don't 
> appear to have a corresponding "src/" (i.e. "gnu/" still seems to be 
> at the top-level).   

I didn't do them yet... we'd have to change the build systems.

I'd like to get your input on my Makefile because it would be useful
if we could find some way to abstract it into an automake macro.

I don't know anything about automake (except the very basics). You
certainly know more than I do.

So, in short, I don't want to disrupt the existing build systems
unnecessarily.

  
> Another thing, perhaps we should change "cp-tools" module to something 
> more descriptive, it also could confuse people, especially as this 
> used to contain "texidoclet".  I think you suggested "gjh/" on an 
> earlier thread, which is fine, otherwise something like "misc/" or 
> "utils/" might suffice (especially if we don't want to have a package 
> that contains something like 5 files, we can put other various 
> miscellaneous classes that are small, but don't fit in as part of some 
> larger package). 

I agree.

Brian any ideas? This is mainly your stuff now.


> NF> Ok. I will probably add my Makefile.in later on. 
>  
> OK, can you put it in with a different name, so that it doesn't clash 
> with the one that automake generates?  We can work on merging the two 
> once it's in CVS. 

What I was going to do was add the new Makefile to the new
module. Then that module is completly self contained and once we've
seen how everything works and if we want it all to work that way we
can role it out from there.

Because it should work from CVS I'm going to call it Makefile.in in
the texinfo-doclet module.


Nic