Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!xanth!mcnc!rti!talos!kjones
From: kjones@talos.UUCP (Kyle Jones)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs
Subject: Re:  Emacs Lisp Archives -- organization
Message-ID: <566@talos.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jun 89 14:26:40 GMT
References: <8906231624.AA00970@flash.>
Reply-To: kjones%talos.uucp@uunet.uu.net
Lines: 20

Stephen D. Rogers writes:
 > I think that the same directory structure should be used for *archiving*
 > and for *using* lisp packages.  However, I also think that the directory
 > structure should be oriented towards package use first, and package
 > archiving second.

I disagree.  We're discussing an archive, not a library.  Organization
and file naming should be aimed toward easing the task of finding the
software you want and unpacking it once you have it on your system.
Once the code is on your system, you can organize it as you see fit.

The subdirectory scheme Dave Sill outline is quite sufficient.  I don't
see the need for subdirectories for individual packages.  Multifile
packages should be shar'd and compressed anyway.

As for file names, as long as the file name can be matched to a code
description in Dave Sill's elisp-directory, the file names can be jsut
about anything.  Shar files should be numbered appropriately, and have
"shar" in the file name somewhere.  Also I think all the code should be
compressed, for the sake of OSU's disks and to cut file transfer times.