Change repo structure. Stage 2 #192
Conversation
python-package/setup.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| def copy_files_helper(folder_name): | ||
| src = os.path.join(CURRENT_DIR, os.path.pardir, folder_name) | ||
| if os.path.exists(src): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just out of curiosity, why is it better?
python-package/setup.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| if not os.path.exists(os.path.join(CURRENT_DIR, '_IS_SOURCE_PACKAGE')): | ||
| copy_files_helper('RGF') | ||
| # copy_files_helper('FastRGF') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
# copy_files_helper('FastRGF')
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's for the next stage. Do you want I remove this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
position of "#" may be strange, I mean.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, I'll just remove it.
python-package/setup.py
Outdated
| else: | ||
| raise Exception('Cannot copy {} folder'.format(src)) | ||
|
|
||
| if not os.path.exists(os.path.join(CURRENT_DIR, '_IS_SOURCE_PACKAGE')): |
|
Regarding README, maybe "existing makefile" -> "the provided makefile" in 3.1.3. and 3.2.1? (I'm assuming that "existing makefile" means "makefile that is provided by this software package". Right?) I also found "Existing" in the section titles a bit hard to understand, and so how about "3.1.2. Visual Studio (using the provided solution file)", "3.1.3. MinGW (using the provided makefile)", and "3.2.1. g++ (using the provided makefile)? Or maybe, "3.1.2. Visual Studio (solution provided)", 3.1.3. MinGW (makefile provided)" and so on? This is just a minor suggestion, and I'll leave it to you. Thanks. |
|
@riejohnson Thank you for your suggestion. Yeah, "provided" seems to be more appropriate than "existing". |
This PR is a continuation of #191.
Refer to #166.
RGF software package has been moved into a separate 1st level folder.
Also, instructions about how to compile RGF have been moved from python-package's
Readme.rstto RGF's ownREADME.md.In addition, missed list item about MinGW fix in RGF changelog has been added,