Re: tuareg et/ou ocaml-dev ?
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 10:44:44AM +0100, Georges Mariano wrote:
> De : Ralf Treinen <treinen@club-internet.fr>
> À : debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
> <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>
> Date : samedi 10 mars 2001 14:20
> Objet : tuareg et/ou ocaml-dev ?
>
> >On the other hand tuareg mode stands, imho, a bit apart from
> >libraries in that it is a tool for the programmer. We could
> >build an ocaml-devel-tools package, however I have no idea
> >what else to put in such a package - in particular since this
> >package would be architecture-independent.
> >
> >Any comments? Otherwise I'll issue an ITP next week and build the
> >tuareg package.
>
> May I suggest :
> a package ocaml-devel-task (or task-ocaml-devel, I can't remember the usual
> order)
> which leads to the installation of :
> * one package ocaml-utils which may contain things like tuareg, ocamlmake
Yes, ocamlmake is also a candidate for this.
> etc
> if such things do not really need to build a specific package for them
> (what about tuareg "providing" (Debian parlance) some thing like
> "ocaml-mode" (also in [but not "provided" the standard package ocaml (it
> already contains an emacs mode if I remember well...)
> and
a diversion is called for here, maybe, if both modes cannot be used
simoultanously. I don't know the mechanism for it though.
> * auxiliary packages like tuareg (if not in ocaml-utils), ocamlweb (I
> think that ocamlweb *is* a development tool/utility), camlp4(?) and others
> ??
Err, i think we really need a task-ocaml which would contain the runtime and
some bytecode only libraries, and a task-ocaml-dev which would contain all the
rest of the coaml stuff. Any volunter for that ? If not i may look into it
(befroe the woody freeze at least).
> PS since Ocaml is a programming language, I think that
> "ocaml-devel-tools" == "ocaml-utils"
> (i.e utilities for a programming language are development tools ...)
>
> PS2 I don't know if packages can "provide" *several* things ?? I suppose
> this is the case ;-)
Yes, but i still think the diversion mechanism is better in this case.
Georges, still not willing to apply for maintainership ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: