Re: ocamlodbc packaging
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:11:56PM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote:
> 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>
ocamltk is called camltk in the upstream source, but ocamltk in the
announcement made to caml list. The package (even the old slink one) is just
renamed to ocamltk.