Re: Shall we state on naming (again)?
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 08:20:27PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:43:52PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 02:59:54PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'd like that we decide together on some package
> > > naming we discuss recently:
> > > - Maxence proposed to rename OCaml-targeted applications
> > > to ocaml-<package> (at least, he proposed that for
> > > cameleon packages): for example, ocaml-zoggy, ocaml-report,
> > > ocaml-dbforge, and so on.
> >
> > Well, and then we will start the thread about the naming scheme not
> > being coherent with the library one, and we should rename all libraries
> > as ocaml-<name>-lib and ocaml-<name>-dev ?
>
> Where did I write this? If you think the question is pointless, then
> don't answer.
No, you did not write it, but it would kind of make sense to do it that
way, and Georges Mariano would o so happy about it :)))
I don't really have any strong idea about this issue, but remember that
it is always easier not to stray from upstream naming scheme, in order
to not confuse our users. (Well, that is what we decided the last times
we did have this discution).
Well, i may add things when i have a bit more time to think about this.
> > BTW, please don't forget to use correct dependencies with every ocaml
> > package that use bytecode code, even if it is standalone code, it should
> > depend on ocaml-base-3.06, not some other strange stuff. Especially all
>
> What is "some other strange stuff"? Why should I make a standalone
> OCaml program depend on ocaml-base although there's no real
> dependency?
Well, i did see a Depends: ocaml-base (>= 3.06) in one package i will
not name. This will most assuredly break if ocaml 3.07 is bytecode
incompatible with ocaml 3.06 which is something that is more than
probable (and upstream make no guarantees otherwise, even encourage us
to rebuild everything for each version of ocaml.
Also, remember, i did speak about _bytecode_ executable. These
bytecode executables should be built without the -custom flag, and be
arch: all, so they will use the virtual machine of the ocaml-base
package, which warant a strong dependency on ocaml-base, don't you
think ?
And don't tell me we should build with -custom to avoid that, ocaml-base
is most tiny (Installed-Size: 520Ko), and i don't think it is conformant
with any debian policy to have a copy of this for every bytecode
executable, not to speak duplicating the same package for at least 5
arches.
I plan to start a discution on this later here, to add something about
it in the ocaml_packaging_policy.
> > older (well those in woody at least) such package that do not have both
> > the ocaml-base (>= 3.04) and ocaml-base (<< 3.05) dependencies are
> > _BROKEN_. But then they are in woody, nothing much we can do on this.
>
> I'm sorry I don't know of them.
It was _not_ directed at you, just a general reminder, since this
problem some my think i am raving about all the time, and that too
strong dependencies are not good, did bit someone this time.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: