Re: ocamlodbc packaging
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 02:51:08PM +0200, Georges Mariano wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > I think only ocamltk and ocamlweb seem in this category.
>
> and camlimages... (well, there is a mix between real OCaml/debian
> packages and personal experiments on my disk, camlimages is not a real
> package ...
> someone interested ??)
You have a camlimage package ? i was interrested in packaging it (i may use it
soon), but would this not be a good occasion to apply for maintainership, and
maintain the ocaml-image (or whatever you want to name it) package.
> [by the way I have something called "ocaml-libplot" too ...]
>
> lib<plot> i.e OCaml bindings for the GNU plot library
mmm, didn't know about this
>
> > does ocaml-tk and ocaml-web sound better ?
> ... ocaml-libtk ? ;-)
> ... ocaml-web ... nice.
>
> >
> > should we rename them ocaml-minidom and ocaml-gtk ?
>
> well, since I'm not a package manager, my opinion is just ... mine
> but these suggestions sound good to me...;-)
>
> > and camlp4, and standalone programs using ocaml, like coq or unison.
> of course...
>
> > Anyway, i think we should conform to the ocaml-xxx naming scheme for new
> > libraries and bindings, letting standalone programs keep their upstream name
> Yes !!
>
> > (to avoid confusion) and not mess with existing packages,
> > i think package name changes are not a nice thing to do in debian.
>
> What ?? we found something out of Debian technology scope ?? ;-)
> I don't believe you..
Well, you can rename package, but i think it is not nice for people used to
the old names, and i don't really know how well (or bad) apt-get handles this.
I think apt-get dist-upgrade will work well, but apt-get upgrade will not want
to install them. ANd you will have to carry a replace and conflict field for
said package for a long time, i don't think this is worth it for just a
cosmetic name change.
> While we are speaking about important details ;-)
> seems to me that one should write OCaml and not Ocaml...???
> (in things like the packages descriptions, man, READMEs...)
mmm, yes, it should be OCaml or Objective Caml, will fix this in the next
upload of both the mlgtk and the lablgtk package.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: