On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 25.02.2011 16:04, Ingo Weinhold wrote: >> >> Sounds good to me. I'd prefer "packages/contents". > > That sounds very good to me, too. If you look at the packages folder, see a > lot of packages and then one folder "contents", I think all is pretty > obvious. I agree it is better than a separate directory tree. Users still might find it a bit confusing, but I suppose in general they don't need to poke around in there. -- Regards, Ryan