4 Mar
2011
4 Mar
'11
8:22 a.m.
Hi,
And the first steps in reorganizing directories and
makefiles is
available at
http://cgit.osmocom.org/cgit/openbsc/log/?h=laforge/new_structure
Mmm, you remove the unused a3a8 code and you re-add it when doing all
the git-mv one commit later.
I assume it's a manip slip-up.
What do you generally think of this?
Well, IMHO all clean up is good and the structure you laid out makes
sense to me.
If there is no big complaint, I
intend to import Andreas' osmocom-bb.git/jolly/bts code into the openbsc
repository (openbsc/src/bts) and start to merge the RTP code into src/trau
and the generic bits of RSL+OML into src/abis.
Why import the BTS code ?
Since it's new code, doesn't it make sense to make it directly
separate and "well behaved".
It eventually will host the code for:
Virtual BTS
New BTS
BB-BTS (part of it at least, not sure how to split properly)
"True" BTS (same issue, not sure how to handle the split)
So that'll be pretty big all by itself.
Some random ideas:
* prefix the library directories with 'lib', i.e. 'libbsc',
'libmsc' to
clearly state this is not a program but just library code
Yes definitly. They already generate libmsc.a and libbsc.a if I'm not
mistaken, so it would only be logical to name the directories as such.
* rename the openbsc repository to smething more
generic. but what?
I don't think we want to create multiple repositories but keep
everything in a single repo - at least until one of the sub-libraries
is self-contained enough.
osmo-gsm-net (or corenet) ? This seems to be all all the 'network side' stuff.
* should we keep bsc_hack instead of osmo-nitb?
(network-in-the-box)?
or should it rather be called osmo-niab (network-in-a-box)?
Nah, a rename shouldn't be much of an issue IMHO.
As for nitb vs niab, in a google fight "in-the-box" wins vs
"in-a-box". I also find the nitb acronym to sound better.
Cheers,
Sylvain