Re: ocamlodbc packaging
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:16:06PM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote:
> > should we "suggest" to switch to
> > [o]caml-<name> and
> > [o]caml-lib<libname>
> > ??
> what semantic do you want to associate to the two name ?
> (i.e. when exactly you think have to be used one or other ?)
ooups, why did I post such ideas ... ?? ;-)
Well, here is the list of ocaml stuff I have in OCamlDebian directory
(all are not real packages...)
activedvi coq-doc hevea mlgtk ocamldoom ocamltk
bibtex2html coqweb hlins mlminidom ocaml-libint32
camlidl efuns lablgl mmm ocaml-libplot ocamlweb
camlimages findlib lablgtk ocaml ocaml-libpq tony
camlp4 geneweb libungif ocaml-book-ora ocaml-mysql unison
coq gz mldvi ocaml-doc ocamlq-glide xpath
As you can see there are caml* and ocaml*, why ?? I don't know exactly
(probably because before OCaml it was CamlLigth)
Some (very few in fact) packages/stuff are provided with CamlLigth and
OCaml code, so may be we should keep the "caml" prefix. For "pure" OCaml
code, just use "ocaml" prefix.
And new developments will probably be called ocaml<something>
Why lib<stuff> ??? just to recall the usual library naming scheme
(ocaml- prefixed, just like for python, java, ...)
and this is helpful to make the distinction with standalone programs
like ocaml-web (oops, ocamlweb)
ocaml-lib<name> do not provide any standalone binary program (except
maybe some demos or illustrative programs [but why compiled them ??])
they just provide useful code (string manipulations, dedicated parsing
libraries), or bindings for some interesting libraries...
Please note that this was not a proposal for a strict naming scheme,
perhaps a simple way to find names for new packages...
# Georges MARIANO tel: (33) 03 20 43 84 06
# INRETS, 20 rue Élisée Reclus fax: (33) 03 20 43 83 59
# 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq mailto:email@example.com