Re: Cameleon packages almost done

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

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 12:00:09PM +0200, Remi VANICAT wrote:
> Jérôme Marant <marant.logatique@fr.thalesgroup.com> writes:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> >   I have almost finished the preparation of the Cameleon packages
> >   (Thanks Dimitri Ara for upstream fixes).
> >
> >   However, I still have some wonderings:
> >   - as defined by upstream, all cameleon libraries are being
> >     installed in /usr/lib/ocaml/cameleon, so how do I manage
> >     META files?
> 
> There is tree mean :
> - move each library in a different repertory (well, I think it's
>   better to stay with upstream wish)
> - create some empty directory containing only the META information
> - use predicate

  This solution is currently quite impossible. It means a big
  change of makefiles upstream. And Cameleon is shipped as
  a single application after all. A solution on the findlib
  since would be better (like multiple META files in single
  directory)

> 
> >   - Cameleon provides IoXML which is a Camlp4 syntax extension.
> >     We don't have any naming policy for syntax extensions.
> >     (Stefano proposed ocaml-ioxml because he thinks that ioxml
> >     is too generic)
> 
> seam good.

  So ocaml-ioxml is fine?

> 
> >   - what naming policy should I use for ocaml program that have
> >     a quite generic name (for example "report"). Should I use
> >     a ocaml- prefix? How do we consider a program name is
> >     too generic?
> 
> well :
> http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=report&searchmode=searchfiles&case=insensitive&version=unstable&arch=i386&directories=yes
> list 32 pages of package with a file whose name contain report. Seem
> to be a good indication that this name is too generic.

  Sure.

  But as a consistency, should we rename ocaml applications
  ocaml-<app>?

  Thanks.

-- 
Jérôme Marant