I'm in the process of moving the X11 libraries over from hslibs into fptools/libraries and thought I'd better check I'm doing it the approved way before I commit. At present, I'm modelling my infrastructure (Makefiles, directory structure, etc) on the HOpenGL infrastructure so, naturally, I'm putting it in fptools/libraries/X11 and have the following modules: module X11 -- reexports X11.Types and X11.Xlib module X11.StdDIS module X11.Types module X11.Xlib The X11 module lives in fptools/libraries/X11.hs. The X11 library is only built if GhcLibsWithX11 is set. The X11 library is covered by the same license as GHC, Hugs, etc. 1) Is this the right place to put X11 in the directory tree or should I put it under libraries/base or some other existing directory? 2) Is this the right place to put the X11 module in the hierarchial namespace? I'm hoping to get round to moving the Win32 and HGL libraries over pretty soon as well so whatever answer you give should apply to them too. -- Alastair ps The makefiles seem to be entirely for GHC usage but we will want to build X11 and Win32 for Hugs and NHC as well. Since we already have makefiles and other scripts for doing this (Hugs only at present), the easy way to do this would be to copy over the existing scripts and completely ignore the fptools Makefile infrastructure - but it would perhaps be nicer if we could easily exploit the existing infrastructure. (This applies to all the existing stuff in fptools/libraries/base too - the Hugs distro contains stuff to compile all the files that contain ffi code but this largely replicates the instructions from the fptools makefile.) pps Should I continue the unsavoury practice of committing GreenCard generated code to the repository? (Currently done for Win32, I'd do it for Xlib too for the sake of consistency.)