Re: placing console clients and library

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 03:19:00PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Maybe I am just mega-lazy, and confused by your Makefiles :), which sort
> > of endorse a flat directory hiearchy.
> 
> Not as lazy as me, or I would have fixed the makefiles by now!
> They ain't my makefiles, they're Thomas's.

Oh, and I never said anything out of respect for the make author :)
I kinda like automake, but I never tuned it to produce Hurd servers.

> > How does creating a new directory for the console server
> > ("console-server"?) sound, and leaving the client in "console/"?
> 
> I don't have strong opinions, really.  But "console" seems fine enough for
> the server, since it's called /hurd/console (right?),

Yes.

> The PC/VGA client might be
> called "the console console client" (as distinct from "the curses console
> client" or "the VNC server console client"), to use both meanings at once. :)

Hehe ;)

> We should come up with a naming convention for the client programs,
> foocons or foo-console or console-foo or consfoo or something or other.

Exactly, esp the "something or other".  My first instinct was console-foo,
but console-curses is such a long name, and it is the one you would probably
type manually, because this is the equivalent to "screen".  But taking the
length of the name aside, it's good.

> > latter makes more sense.  When I do everything right with the libcons
> > library, the only thing left in the client will be the hardware specific
> > stuff, but I still see room and merit for a framework which allows to
> > plug in various different hardware support.
> 
> I tend to agree.  After all, on a single machine installation you could
> have many different kinds of hardware that you want to support and maybe
> hot swap.

Yes, indeed. 

Thanks,
Marcus

-- 
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [email protected]
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    http://www.gnu.org    [email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de