On 5/9/05, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
public_html/.htaccess.example public_html/index.php public_html/drupal/core public_html/drupal/local Is it any clearer now?
Clear, yes, sensible, not.
If you are doing this, then lose drupal from path, like this:
public_html/.htaccess.example public_html/index.php public_html/core public_html/local
and so on. You can put the whole thing under a subdirectory as you do now. What's the point in having a drupal when you already put index.php into / ? This means http://mysite will be drupal.
This is the original scheme then, but with the word drupal replaced with core. So to rephrase what you said: public_html/.htaccess.example public_html/index.php public_html/drupal/ public_html/drupal/includes/ public_html/drupal/modules/ public_html/drupal/themes/ public_html/drupal/misc/ public_html/drupal/doc (contains all the .TXT files) public_html/local/ public_html/local/sites public_html/local/sites/default/ public_html/local/sites/default/settings.php.example public_html/local/modules (contrib modules that are shared for all sites - empty) public_html/local/themes (contrib themes that are shared for all sites - empty) The above is all what we provide, and the site admin can optionally create a modules and a themes directory under sites/whatever if they so wish, as they can do today. So, untarring a drupal dist in public_html can be completely safe (unless you patched the core, which means you know what you are doing). I am personally OK with this provided that core be renamed drupal (as I did above), but others have expressed concerns about it. I don't really care either way, as long as we have ONE DIRECTORY THAT NEEDS NO CHANGES TO ANYTHING UNDER IT. I volunteer to write the documentation for this also, as per Dries request. Now, to take this to the next level, I assume that all this is done by some script that packages Drupal and produces the tarball. Am I right? Also, some changes are needed in some .inc files to search the appropriate locations. No?