[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: new version of ocaml packages ...



On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 08:43:42PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.

or libxxx-ocaml as ralf suggested .

> > 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 :)

Well, olabl was Jacques implementation of ocaml + label and polymorph methods
+ polymorph variants.

it disappeared when olabl was integrated into ocaml, but the name remained for
the library written by jacques (lablgl, lablgtk, labltk in the ocaml package).

> > 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.

Yes, i suppose i did something wrong, will check again.

(BTW, ocaml 3.04 faisl to build on powerpc (i have a bugreport and fix which i
just sent upstream) and on ia64 (a stack overflow is reported, no idea why).
Both these arches are release candidates for woody, so we need to solve this
quickly. Like said i have a fix for powerpc, but not for ia64. Is there any
ia64 debian box i can access ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther
> 
> 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 -




Reply to: