Return-Path: Message-ID: <1339023575.1817.114.camel@aeonflux> Subject: Re: [RFC] Reorganizing the BlueZ source tree From: Marcel Holtmann To: Bastien Nocera Cc: Luiz Augusto von Dentz , Gustavo Padovan , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 07:59:35 +0900 In-Reply-To: <1338998206.19312.10.camel@novo.hadess.net> References: <20120524081405.GA30941@joana> <1337852769.2115.47.camel@novo.hadess.net> <1337853929.15105.84.camel@aeonflux> <1338998206.19312.10.camel@novo.hadess.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Bastien, > > > > > The last profiles addition to BlueZ increased a lot the number of folders we > > > > > have in the root dir of the project and it looks like more profiles (and more > > > > > folders) are expected to come. > > > > > > > > > > I talked a bit with Johan about changing the hierarchy of the BlueZ tree and > > > > > the following proposal where 2 new folders are created, 'profiles' and 'libs' > > > > > and things are moved to them. > > > > > > > > > > compat -> /dev/null (will be removed on 5.0) > > > > > alert -> profiles > > > > > audio -> profiles > > > > > cups -> profiles > > > > > deviceinfo -> profiles > > > > > health -> profiles > > > > > input -> profiles > > > > > lib -> profiles > > > > > network -> profiles > > > > > proximity -> profiles > > > > > sap -> profiles > > > > > serial -> profiles > > > > > thermometer -> profiles > > > > > time -> profiles > > > > > btio -> libs > > > > > gdbus -> libs > > > > > sbc -> libs > > > > > emulator -> tools > > > > > mgmt -> tools > > > > > monitor -> tools > > > > > attrib > > > > > doc > > > > > plugins > > > > > scripts > > > > > src > > > > > test > > > > > tools > > > > > unit > > > > > > > > Sounds good, the only problem are gdbus and btio, if we merge obexd > > > > into BlueZ btio will no longer be shared but for gdbus we would have > > > > to align with other projects as well. > > > > > > While you're at it, change gdbus' name to something that doesn't clash > > > with the GIO GDBus. > > > > why would we? This code predates GIO GDBus. > > Because people told you that your naming would clash once glib had an > implementation of D-Bus, which you just laughed away. and I still have all the rights to do so. As long as we are still based on GLib, this will stay as it is. I am not jumping through any hoops, because David wouldn't respect prior art. Regards Marcel