Provide package_dir for setting subdirectory of project [alternative]

[joerick]

I hope you don't mind @filips123 - I've taken this further. It's turned out to be quite a fundamental change! So maybe easier for me to do it.

Still to go are tests, but the comments in the previous PR have been addressed.

[joerick]

Tests are now in! Ready for review.

[YannickJadoul]

Will review, but I'll take my time for a thorough comparison, this weekend.

[Czaki]

Short review, Looks good for me. But maybe move this test to be one of first and then use this ability to reduce number of spam.c files? (in other PR)

[joerick]

Thanks for the review!

But maybe move this test to be one of first and then use this ability to reduce number of spam.c files? (in other PR)

I'm not sure what you mean... are you referring to #277 ?

[Czaki]

yes. but I thin that for many test it can be used one sample package so maybe instead of of templates and dynamic write of files use this PR result.

[YannickJadoul]

To be fair, I don't see a lot of differences with #295. Maybe some extra cleaning up and the added test, or am I missing something fundamental?

So yeah, I don't have a lot of remarks. Looks pretty good to me :-)
Maybe an extra warning in the docs might be good to specify that now the whole pwd is copied when running Linux on this (which is potentially costly)?

[YannickJadoul]

I'm not sure what you mean... are you referring to #277 ?

I would keep that separate, btw. We should try to solve this, but the difference between 12 test folders before this PR and 13 folders after isn't going to make a difference here. I do agree with the thing that somehow tests are less and less in a "logical" order (but that's also another discussion).

[joerick]

To be fair, I don't see a lot of differences with #295. Maybe some extra cleaning up and the added test, or am I missing something fundamental?

No, that's all it is - I just took @filips123's PR and fixed a couple things.