Idea for Craft: Splitting 'build' and 'image' directories

[Jack Ostroff]

For normal builds, that is fine.  However, if you have any problems, and 
want to manually test changes to the source and then just issue "make" 
again without redoing the entire build, it will be more difficult to 
switch between the build and source folders, instead of them being under 
the same parent.  I suppose it's easy enough to just open a new window 
for each folder, but just wanted to put this out for consideration.

Jack

On 11/27/2016 12:02 PM, Hannah von Reth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the idea. But instead of polluting the root directory even more,
> I'd rather split them inside the build folder,
> so build/images and build/"I can't think of a reasonable name for this
> folder but build/build would sound stupid" .
>
> But I warn you, you will probably come across some strange code when
> adding this so I think we should start to review changes to the craft
> bin folder :) , we are on phabricator.
>
> Keep on Crafting :D
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannah
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: albertvaka at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 23:00:14 +0100
> Subject: Idea for Craft: Splitting 'build' and 'image' directories
> To: kde-windows at kde.org
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> When using Craft to build a package "X", two different directories are
> created inside the directory "build/X":
>
> * "build/X/work", which typically is the cmake build directory.
> * "build/X/image-<buildtype>", which contains the "installed" files.
>
> The files inside "image" need to be preserved in case we later want to
> create an installer for our package. The "work" directory, however, is
> not needed anymore, and will actually be deleted and recreated if we
> build the same package again (unless we are explicitly doing a --noclean
> build).
>
> Since the stuff in "work" is quite large in size and mostly not needed,
> I'm sometimes tempted to go and delete it, but this directory hierarchy
> makes it difficult as we have to go package-by-package.
>
> For this reason, I propose to move the "image-<buildtype>" directories
> to a new "image" directory in the root level, so the end result is like
> this:
>
> * "build/X": the build directory
> * "image/X/buildtype": the installed files
>
> I think this is a cleaner separation between these two build products
> and, also, makes it easier to free space just deleting the "build"
> directory (together with others like "download").
>
> If you like this idea, I will proceed and make the changes needed. Any
> thoughts? Did I miss some reason for these two things to be together?
>
> Albert
>