Re: camlzip 1.01-1 uploaded ...
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 07:02:31PM +0100, Georges Mariano wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:46:02 +0100
> Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> 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.
>
> Why ? I mean, suppose that I'm a user who wants to find something
> related to OCaml and doing, say image processing ...
>
> let's go : apt-cache search caml | grep image ...
What about ocaml libraries with neither mention of caml in their name (mlgtk
comes to mind) or in their description ?
> and so on ... (apt-cache show on the result to see if it is
> a lib or something else ...)
>
> Is there somewhere in Debian Policy/ies something stating that
> those who are building a specific set of packages should use
> a naming schema ?
Yes, the newly written (by me) debian/ocaml policy ...
> May be naming schemas were useful when there was no
> browsing/searching tools on packages, but this is no more the
> case ...
They are still usefull for easy dpkg -l browsing.
> So, I would prefer no policy than an ugly and unuseful one.
> Since 4 years I manage debian boxes (laptops/desktops),
> I have built a few little package, I *never*, repeat *never*
> use the fact that (certain) names are following a naming scheme
> (maybe simply because there are always exceptions ?...)
Ah, but the packages were not splitted as they are now.
> On the opposite, it's very frustrating to read an (error) message
> stating something like "you need xxxxx to install yyyyy" (you
> know, just at the end of ./configure ;-). Just after, apt-get
> install xxxxx fails and you find ultimately that apt-get install
> libxxxx0g-dev was correct...
Just use the -D switch to dpkg-buildpackage, it should check the
build-depends, if this don't work, please fill a bug report with severity
grave or higher.
BTW, in the current scheme, apt-get install camlzip will install both
libzip-ocaml and libzip-ocaml-dev (starting at camlzip 1.01-4), so this is no
problem.
> > The one proposed by Sven is ok for me and surely is ok also for
> > him. 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.
>
> just make what you want...
> and, BTW, what if I had wrote first the policy with a naming
> scheme base on ocaml-....-lib/-dev/-doc ??
Well, it would have been nice, but again, you didn't do it, and well, it was
me who implemented it first.
BTW, your proposed naming scheme would not have worked, you would have needed
a -lib-dev, not just a -dev, don't you think.
Also what would you have used ?
ocaml-camlimages-lib ?
or ocaml-images-lib ?
(Also if you had proposed better scheme, not starting with i don't like the
previous one, but supported by nice and rigorous reasoning, it would be
better, and not about package filtering).
> > 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.
>
> Camlimages is a good name. It only has the drawback that you
> can fit it in a policy... don't see the point.
huh ???
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: