Re: Cameleon packages almost done
> - 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 ?