On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 11:13:18AM +0100, Georges Mariano wrote:
> but you look for "xxx" or "[o]caml", so that the three letters 'l i b'
> in the name of a package (you are looking for) are useless.
No, they aren't useless. That three letter says that this a library for
ocaml! Do you think that ocaml packages are made up only of libraries?
(e.g. ocaml-findlib, ocaml-tools, camlidl ...)camlidl ...)camlidl ...)
> > Surely changing "ocaml-netstring" in "libnetstring-ocaml" and
> > "ocamltk" in "libtk-ocaml" helps,
> ?? do not see why you can say that it would "help"
> I never used a command like "apt-cache search lib"...
> I always try something like "apt-cache search caml"
This works only because at the moment there are only a few ocaml related
packages and most of them are libraries. Think bigger.
> > next note that "libtk-ocaml" and
> > "libtk-ruby" are very similar, in fact they do the same thing only
> > for different languages.
>
> Do you mean that a user (at least, the one you know ;-) may use
> libtk-ruby instead of libtk-ocaml since "they do the same thing" ??
> Of course not. (mainly because they _don't do the same thing_ ...)
apt-cache search ocaml | grep libtk
> Frankly speeaking, the libXXX scheme is rather stupid and useless
> for the every day debian's user [he uses goggle or tuxfinder ;-) ]
If you want to change the whole libxxx naming schema, go and ask on
debian-devel. The fact that you personally dislike it is not a valid
reason to not use it in the limited field of debian ocaml package. If
anyone builds its own packages following its personal whishes we could
safely destroy the policy.
Why you think it is useless? Its help in maintaining organized a very
very very big slice of the debian archive. Why you think that we should
misc library packages with others? Your simplest alphabetical order, if
used with this schema, keep separated libraries from others, who cares
if ocaml and python libraries are mixed? Not every user is a developer,
so is better to separe libraries from non libraries than ocaml libraries
from python ones (that are easy to separe: use grep!)
> But, like emacs, LaTeX, and others powerfull tools, the real benefit
> is gained when you stop looking backward at the things you used to do
> and start looking at the new (and hopefully better) way you will do.
The problem is that I can't see where your "new" is better than old one
and even if I can see it the disomogeneity is probably a bigger problem
that the one you are trying to solve.
> Standards are also made to be improved.
Only if there is a big advantage in doing so.
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:
pgpFUmCUlLsec.pgp
Description: PGP signature