Re: Plans [Re: Cameleon 1.0]
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:35:07PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:16:52PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 02:19:07PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > > > Perhaps, we have to look if this is a useful program or not. I'm
> > > > defintely against the approach "package this chat program only because
> > > > it is written in ocaml", but if it is better than other talk approach
> > > > ... why not?
> > >
> > > Dimitri wants it, so we'll ship it.
> > Ok, I hope in a future larger user base, but this is a good start ... ;)
> > > > OCamlmake-o-matic ok, but from the description of OCamlCVS seems that
> > > > there is also a library, have you checked it?
> > >
> > > Yes, I was wrong indeed, but I'm not in favour of slipping
> > > OCamlCVS.
> > Uhm, we probably should have one "ocamlcvs" package, and one
> > libcvs-ocaml-... package depending on each other as needed. But probably
> > isn't a good idea to have cameleon depending on ocamlcvs (note this is
> > based on the assumption that other tools doesn't need, or even use,
> > ocamlcvs ... If this assumption is wrong cameleon should safely depend
> > on ocamlcvs).
> It is also ok to have only one ocamlcvs package, but it should provide
> libcvs-ocaml and libcvs-ocaml-dev virtual packages.
> But then, dpkg is yet broken with respect to virtual packages and
> versioned dependencies.
I personaly think that spliting cameleon in one package per component
it provides is enough (14 packages): making subcomponents (i.e.
libraries in their own package) is overbloating.