[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Cameleon packages almost done

Hello again,

>   - 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?

My two cents : every tool which is for a "development with OCaml" usage only should be called ocaml-XXX (ocaml-report, ocaml-zoggy, ...), while applications which in the end does not depend on OCaml should be called by their name only, like 'mldonkey'. Maybe i did not choose right names at the beginning...
>   Now, I have a request to Maxence: for any ocaml program in
>   Cameleon, you should build either the bytecode version or
>   the native one; I don't think building both is usefull.
>   Currently, in the debian package, I'm providing only the
>   native version when available and the bytecode one when not
>   (with the same name).

Hum, yes, but not for all. For example, cameleon native and bytecode versions differ because the bytecode version allows the plug-in loading, but native version is faster. For tools where native and byte code versions do the same, I agree that I should only compile byt OR native. I'll do this in the future.
But keeping bytecode AND native is good, isn't it ?


Reply to: