On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Melchior FRANZ <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
* someone off list, but IMHO this should be discussed openly:
> [...] but the intent is for FG_ROOT to point to a top level
> directory (i.e. the root) and beneath that would be bin/
> data/ src/ lib/ include/ etc ....
There's only one reason why we need to point fgfs and associatedscripts and tools to some place *at all* (using FG_ROOT or --fg-root):
So that they can find the data at runtime. There's no reason
*whatsoever* to have a pointer to source files and #includes.
And the runtime data directory is that which contains file
"version". It's *not* a directory which contains a data/ directory
which contains the data.
Making the layout optional was a bad idea 10 years ago, and it
is a bad idea today. Even worse, as we have many more users
and it bites us a lot more often in the ass than it used to.
My intention is to remove the disgusting hack that checks for
an existing data/ dir and that appends it if found, and that
before the 2.0 release.
I'm not an archeologist, and I don't think we should look at what
seemed to make sense a decade ago. What we have now doesn't make
sense. It leads to bugs and confusion, while not having a *single*
advantage. Or could anyone tell me one, please? Just one?