Re: Plans [Re: Cameleon 1.0]

[Jérôme Marant <marant.logatique@fr.thalesgroup.com>]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 02:11:21PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> > > Then, surely MLChat can be not packaged, or packaged as an example (do
> > > we really need it?).
> > 
> >   Or simply not ship it.
> 
> Perhaps, we have to look if this is a useful program or not. I'm
> defintely against the approach "package this chat program only because
> it is written in ocaml", but if it is better than other talk approach
> ... why not?

  Dimitri wants it, so we'll ship it.
 
> > > If they aren't integrated is probably better to split a binary package
> > > for each tool (each of which should depends on the needed libraries) and
> > > then have a "cameleon" package which depends only on the _tools_.
> > 
> >   That's what I intend to do.
> 
> Agreed, so this tools are not integrated? Right? (this is not a
> criticism, I just want to know if there is a single entry point, like an
> IDE, or not)

  They are integrated by the means of the cameleon program and
  a set of plugins. But they don't have to be: you can run them
  through cameleon (if you installed it) or separately.

> 
> >   OCamlCVS and OCamlmake-o-matic are tools, not libraries.
> 
> OCamlmake-o-matic ok, but from the description of OCamlCVS seems that
> there is also a library, have you checked it?

  Yes, I was wrong indeed, but I'm not in favour of slipping
  OCamlCVS.
 
> >   Stefano, since you already packaged some bits of cameleon, would you like
> >   to be co-maintainer on it?
> 
> Sure, I've already proposed it IIRC.
> BTW, we have to look for some debian 'official' handling of
> comaintainership, I've seen something like that somewhere, probably on
> the PTS.

  Using the Uploaders field in debian/control and subscribing to the
  package via the PTS should suffice.

> >   I can see if we can store the debian directory in Debian CVS, hence
> >   we could work in team.
> 
> If not, we can work directly on the upstream CVS, obviously with the
> upstream consensus, what do you think about it, Maxence?

  That would be ideal.

> >   I can propose a first version of the packaging we would work on.
> 
> Good for me, I've still one package pending (lablgtkmathview) to
> complete the 3.06 transition, next I can start looking at cameleon.

  I'll come up with a first draft in one or two days.

  Cheers,

-- 
Jérôme Marant