Re: Plans [Re: Cameleon 1.0]

[Maxence Guesdon <maxence.guesdon@inria.fr>]

>   Well, I grabed the tarball yesterday, unpacked, built and installed
>   it and everything went OK.

Ouf !
 
>   I started a bit of packaging and I was amazed about the number of
>   software components it provides.
> 
>   I have still not made up my mind about how things should be packaged.
> 
>   Here are possible solutions:
>   - each component in its own package and a cameleon package depending on
>     all of them (they'll have to have their own version, different from
>     the cameleon version).
>   - a set of packages: cameleon (meta package), camaleon-tools, cameleon-libs

I'm still wondering about having a different version number for each tool.
Since they are all in the same tarball, and no tool will be released
without the others, i think i'll give them all the same version number.
What do you think about that ?

Independently from this consideration, i think that providing
a package for each tool or lib (more or less each subdir of cameleon) is better
because some tools come with their own library too.

An exception: Okey, Configwin and Gpattern should be in the same package
because they're all useful when using LablGtk. They need Options, but
Options should be in its own package, since it does not depend on LablGtk
and can be used for any application.

The documentation browser and the cameleon tool should be in the same package
since docbrowser contains a lot of cameleon's .cmo files and uses the same
configuration files.

Here is the list of provided tools and libs (you write e-mails faster than me ;-)

    * Options
    * Okey
    * IoXML
    * Configwin
    * Zoggy
    * Report
    * Epeire
    * Topcameleon
    * OCamlmake-o-matic
    * OCamlCVS
    * A documentation browser
    * MLChat
    * DBForge
    * Gpattern
    * The cameleon tool, as a glue between the other tools.


-- 
Maxence