Re: ocamlodbc packaging
Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think only ocamltk and ocamlweb seem in this category.
and camlimages... (well, there is a mix between real OCaml/debian
packages and personal experiments on my disk, camlimages is not a real
package ...
someone interested ??)
[by the way I have something called "ocaml-libplot" too ...]
lib<plot> i.e OCaml bindings for the GNU plot library
> does ocaml-tk and ocaml-web sound better ?
... ocaml-libtk ? ;-)
... ocaml-web ... nice.
>
> should we rename them ocaml-minidom and ocaml-gtk ?
well, since I'm not a package manager, my opinion is just ... mine
but these suggestions sound good to me...;-)
> and camlp4, and standalone programs using ocaml, like coq or unison.
of course...
> Anyway, i think we should conform to the ocaml-xxx naming scheme for new
> libraries and bindings, letting standalone programs keep their upstream name
Yes !!
> (to avoid confusion) and not mess with existing packages,
> i think package name changes are not a nice thing to do in debian.
What ?? we found something out of Debian technology scope ?? ;-)
I don't believe you..
While we are speaking about important details ;-)
seems to me that one should write OCaml and not Ocaml...???
(in things like the packages descriptions, man, READMEs...)
Cheers
--
# Georges MARIANO tel: (33) 03 20 43 84 06
# INRETS, 20 rue Élisée Reclus fax: (33) 03 20 43 83 59
# 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq mailto:georges.mariano@inrets.fr
# FRANCE.
# http://www3.inrets.fr/estas/mariano
# http://www3.inrets.fr/B-Bibliography
Reply to: