MSL v4.1.0-beta.1 feedback on asset structure

[beutlich]

This is the library structure of https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/releases/download/v4.0.0-beta.1/ModelicaStandardLibrary_v4.0.0-beta.1.zip

- Modelica 4.0.0/
- ModelicaReference 4.0.0/
- ModelicaServices 4.0.0/
- ModelicaTest/
- LICENSE
- README.md
- Complex.mo
- ModelicaTestConversion4.mo
- ModelicaTestOverdetermined.mo
- ObsoleteModelica4.mo

and this is how it looks in https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/releases/download/v4.1.0-beta.1/ModelicaStandardLibrary_v4.1.0-beta.1.zip

- ModelicaStandardLibrary-maint-4.1.0/
  |- Modelica/
  |- ModelicaReference/
  |- ModelicaServices/
  |- ModelicaTest/
  |- Complex.mo
  |- LICENSE
  |- ModelicaTestConversion4.mo
  |- ModelicaTestOverdetermined.mo
  |- ObsoleteModelica4.mo
  |- README.md

Two obvious issues here:

1. The top-level directory ModelicaStandardLibrary-maint-4.1.0\ is not needed.
2. The library directories miss the version suffix. Not sure if needed, but for now it is not consistent with what's documented at https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/wiki/Generating-a-new-MSL-release.

[henrikt-ma]

Two obvious issues here:

1. The top-level directory ModelicaStandardLibrary-maint-4.1.0\ is not needed.
2. The library directories miss the version suffix. Not sure if needed, but for now it is not consistent with what's documented at https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/wiki/Generating-a-new-MSL-release.

Consistency with what's documented is good, but perhaps it's the documentation that needs to be updated? To me, the new packaging looks better than the old one:

• The old way of putting the version number in a directory with a package.mo inside was against the specification: https://specification.modelica.org/master/packages.html#directory-hierarchy-mapping
• It is very convenient to have the version present in the directories on the MODELICAPATH, especially when having multiple versions installed at the same time, and the new distribution with a single top level directory for the library solves this nicely. (It's a pity that https://specification.modelica.org/master/packages.html#the-modelica-library-path-modelicapath doesn't mention this need.)
• Files such as LICENSE and README.md clearly doesn't fit directly on the "modelica path", so with the previous distribution one would need to create a suitable directory for the contents anyway.

[maltelenz]

• The old way of putting the version number in a directory with a package.mo inside was against the specification: https://specification.modelica.org/master/packages.html#directory-hierarchy-mapping

Not true: https://specification.modelica.org/master/annotations.html#mapping-of-versions-to-file-system

[henrikt-ma]

Not true: https://specification.modelica.org/master/annotations.html#mapping-of-versions-to-file-system

OK, so it wasn't that strange that it looked so familiar after all. Looks like it's time to update Directory Hierarchy Mapping then.

[beutlich]

Consistency with what's documented is good

Indeed, that's all what I am aiming for. We should at least stick with our own documentation and guidelines.