The overview had been restructured around a named three-layer model —
user, developer, filesystem — that was never part of the design. The
underlying point stands: a reader must be able to tell whether a given
statement applies to them, and a code-level symbol must never appear in
prose without saying whose vantage point it belongs to.
Sections are now named for the reader they address rather than for a
tier: "Running the dpm binary", "Writing a program against libdpm-core",
"What DPM reads and writes on disk". The remaining uses of "layer" are
the capability-growth layers the design already defines.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
dpm_require no longer takes a minimum version and applies no version
criterion of its own. A handle now means the module is valid, not that
it suits the caller. dpm_module_info_of is added alongside it, reporting
the name, version, description, and minimum-libdpm-core version read at
load, so a consuming module can judge a dependency's version for itself.
The one rule still enforced is the minimum-version handshake, where
libdpm-core is the host and refuses a module that demands a newer library
than the one running.
dpm_module_info_of joins the version script, so the exported surface is
now fourteen symbols under DPM_CORE_1.0.
Separately, the bare word "core" is gone from prose everywhere. It named
both the command-line tool and the library, so every use forced the
reader to guess which. Text now says "the dpm binary" or "libdpm-core".
Identifiers keep their spelling: libdpm-core, core.h, core.conf, the
"core" configuration namespace, dpm_core_version, core_min, DPM_CORE_1.0,
the dpmcore namespace, test_core, core_api.
Three user-visible strings changed with it: the load-refusal message now
reads "requires libdpm-core >= X, running libdpm-core is Y — update
libdpm-core", and the info module's description and help text name the
library. The test asserting on the refusal text was updated to match.
DESIGN.md's terminology line no longer defines "DPM Core" as the CLI,
which was the source of the ambiguity. OVERVIEW.md is restructured around
the three layers a reader meets DPM at — user, developer, filesystem —
so a code-level symbol never appears without saying whose layer it is.
MODULES.md describes the bundled info module as testing and demonstrating
full DPM system functionality rather than as a reference implementation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
clean was deleting the generated build system along with the artifacts —
CMakeCache.txt, the makefiles, CMakeFiles/, the CMake file API directory,
and the CTest configuration. That left the build directory unconfigured
after every clean, so an IDE reading its target list from the file API
lost every target until the project was reloaded. clean now removes only
what the build produced.
Also writes CTest's scratch directory into DartConfiguration.tcl so a bare
ctest and IDE test discovery use it too, not just build-driven runs.
BUILD.md no longer lists libdl as a dependency; glibc 2.34 merged it into
libc, so nothing links against it. The code-reference section moves to its
own DOCUMENTATION.md.
The fixture config logged at ERROR while the info module emits its output
at INFO, so the CLI invocation BUILD.md documents exited 0 and printed
nothing. The fixture now logs at INFO and the documented command works as
written.
OVERVIEW.md describes what DPM is, how core routes and validates modules,
and why the architecture takes the shape it does.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
