On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 05:34:46PM +0100, Sven wrote:
> I think various other packages follow the perl example and provide a -base
> name, This is a well established naming convention to use, but i may be
> willing to reconsider it.
ok, you are right, this is almost a standard in debian, so no probs.
> Anyway, i was thinking about the ocaml package providing and replacing the
> ocaml-base package.
nice idea.
> > I don't know if there is a policy statement but usually the *-doc
> > packages install the docs in the /share/doc/ dir of the main package.
>
> mmm, i don't think there is any clear evidence for either cases.
no, but consider, in addition to other thinkings, that the semantic of a
/usr/share/doc/<name> dir is (IMO obviously) "contains documentation
about package <name>", so /usr/share/doc/ocaml should contain all
documentation about "ocaml" package even if it comes from other
packages; /usr/share/doc/ocaml-doc should contain documentation about
"ocaml-doc" package such as README.Debian, copyright of the
documentation and so on.
> ocaml-doc could be a symlink to ocaml/doc ?
no, you will incur in name clashes about README.Debian, copyright and
other files.
> There may also be compatibility problems ...
surely :(, mainly due to explicit labels that are needed from ocaml
3.04.
Have we to wait for upstream new version of libraries?
This can be a good idea, but if we reach the freeze with ocaml 3.04 and
libraries compiled with ocaml 3.03, we will be in trouble for bytecode
compatibility.
We can wait uploading ocaml 3.04 until a reasonbale amount of libreries
will be ported to ocaml 3.04, but also this isn't a good choice.
Thoughts?
--
Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <zack@cs.unibo.it> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy
- Information wants to be Open -
Attachment:
pgpnNO9hflJJ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature