Re: Plans [Re: Cameleon 1.0]
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:16:52PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 02:19:07PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Ok, I hope in a future larger user base, but this is a good start ... ;)
>
> > > 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.
>
> Uhm, we probably should have one "ocamlcvs" package, and one
> libcvs-ocaml-... package depending on each other as needed. But probably
> isn't a good idea to have cameleon depending on ocamlcvs (note this is
> based on the assumption that other tools doesn't need, or even use,
> ocamlcvs ... If this assumption is wrong cameleon should safely depend
> on ocamlcvs).
It is also ok to have only one ocamlcvs package, but it should provide
libcvs-ocaml and libcvs-ocaml-dev virtual packages.
But then, dpkg is yet broken with respect to virtual packages and
versioned dependencies.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: