Re: camlzip 1.01-1 uploaded ...
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 06:46:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 02:42:38PM +0100, Georges Mariano wrote:
> > Sorry, but I can't remember the reason why you _have to_ change
> > the upstream name ? (i.e what's the problem with it ?)
>
> Because we need a consistent naming schema for ocaml libraries.
And was it not you Georges, that complained that all package don't have ocaml
in them ?
> The one proposed by Sven is ok for me and surely is ok also for him.
Well, let's go for a mix of this scheme and not yet split libraries for woody,
for woody+1, we can think on it more cooly, and maybe a better solution will
come about. We should interview the upstream authors about this also, maybe
they have something to say about it.
> If you really wants to, we can vote and take a global (i.e. the one that
> we will put in the ocaml debian policy) decision.
Yes, ...
> IIRC, you only dislike this naming schema.
>
> Note that we are not discussing about the camlimage new package name, we
> are discussing about the schema (i.e. lib*-ocaml).
>
> Next, remaining in the schema, if you think that libimages-ocaml is a
> better name I can also choose it, but in such a case the upstream name
> is even more hidden.
I am not thinkin this right, the camlimages name will disapear and nobody will
find its stuf fback. Also i am not sure upstream agrees with that.
BTW, contrary to camlzip, which install in CAMLDIR/zip, camlimages actually
installs in CAMLDIR/camlimages.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: