[Insight-developers] ITKv4 Modularization Plan

[Brad King]

On 02/08/2011 10:32 AM, Bill Lorensen wrote:
> I understand the packaging argument, but why can't the tree names be
> similar to what I proposed.
> 
> On linux, the packages have names like
> gnome-disk-utility.i686
> 
> But, the tree names are conventional linux tree names.
> 
> I can't find any example on my linux distribution that uses a naming
> convention like the one proposed.

Have you looked at the source tree of every single installed package?

Anyway, the modules *are* packages of *source* code.  The modules/
directory contains a flat list of all modules.  The directory names
match the module names.  Very simple.  It is easy to know the path
of a module based on its name rather than having to guess which
dashes turn into slashes.

The module names also carry over to the build and install trees.
An application can write

  find_package(itk-mymodule)

to build against just that module and its dependencies.  The module
names should not have slashes in them or this can't work.

-Brad