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