On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 07:18:09PM +0100, Sven wrote:
> o The dlls will go into a library package (libocaml-xxx for example,
> or simply libxxx ?)
I really prefer libocaml-xxx, following the perl schema.
> o the rest of the stuff will go into a developpment package
> (libocaml-xxx-dev ?) which will depend on the library package, and
> conflicts, replaces and provides the old package name (xxx most often).
So you think that also old package like, for example ocaml-xstr, should
be renamed to libocaml-xstr-dev, right?
> What do you think of this scheme, Should we go ahead with it ?
If we fully agree, yes. Personally I see no problem with this naming
schema. I'm only concerned about woody release times, as already said I
think that we should wait for the woody release and _next_ perform all
this changes; anyway I'm in doubt because I can't yet understend if the
freeze time will be postponed ad interim or is just coming.
> What about the naming scheme, should we call it libocaml-xxx or libxxx only ?
as above: I prefer libocaml-xxx.
> Also, in case of packages like lablgl, should we name it libocaml-gl, or
> libocaml-lablgl ? We should ask the opinion of upstream about it. Naturally,
I haven't never understand what does "labl" stands for, if you can
explain this point I can decide whether I prefer libocaml-gl or
libocaml-lablgl :)
> Now, i am not sure if the conflict/replace/provide part is really necessayr
> here, or if it is just clutter we can remove now and fix packages depending on
> these libraries, which should not be that numerous, i think, since anyway, the
> dynamic libraries were not present prior to ocaml 3.04.
I think that we have to use "conflict" in any case, just to minimaze
unconsistent states and problems for final users.
Cheers.
--
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:
pgpBWK8uFw5Ia.pgp
Description: PGP signature