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
> ocaml-tools
> 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>
Notice :
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.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: