Re: Cameleon packages almost done

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

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:06:00PM +0200, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> 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...

  We should then decide on something about the OCaml policy.


> >   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 ?

  If there aren't any good reason for keeping both, users won't understand.
  Are cameleon binaries the only ones to behave differently in Cameleon?
  (BTW, what binaries from the cameleon directory behave a different way?)

  Thanks.

-- 
Jérôme Marant