Re: Ouput directory other than source directory

[David Odin <nospam@thanx>]

On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 02:28:57PM +0200, barbier@imacs.polytechnique.fr wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Darko Krizic wrote:
> 
> > > The Debian web site currently uses "make install" to copy all the *.html
> > > files etc. to a different directory.  Two reasons that I can think of are:
> > 
> > I "wmk" the pages on one machine and copy the files using "sitecopy -u bsb"
> > with the WebDAV protocol to a WebDAV-enabled Apache (Apache + mod_dav). In
> > ./.sitecopyrc I can specify rules what files to exclude like *.wml,
> > Makefile, .wmlrc, .wmkrc.
> > 
> > I think this is the most elegant solution.
> 
> Ok, building and mirroring is something i understand. But could someone
> explain the benefits of putting output files in a different directory than
> the source file (that's what the subject means).
> 
> I want to know if it is worth i try to ease such manipulations.
> 
  As I've explain in a previous post this could be _really easily_ done by
using symlinks.

  The reason why I (personnaly) prefer to keep the .wml files in a different
directory from the .html files, is that I believe it reduce the mess into
both directories.

  I also save 2 keystrokes to edit a .wml file. For instance, if I want
to edit the file 'index.wml', I only have to press 'i' and '<Tab>'. If the
.wml and .html were in the same directory, I would have to stroke :
'i', '<Tab>', 'w', and '<Tab>'.

  Lazyness, Lazyness... Apart from that I have to admit it's a silly way
of doing things. I wouldn't use two different directories for .o and .c
file for instance.

                      DindinX

-- 
David.Odin@bigfoot.com

What does "it" mean in the sentence "What time is it?"?
______________________________________________________________________
Website META Language (WML)                www.engelschall.com/sw/wml/
Official Support Mailing List                   sw-wml@engelschall.com
Automated List Manager                       majordomo@engelschall.com