On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 02:19:07PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > Perhaps, we have to look if this is a useful program or not. I'm > > defintely against the approach "package this chat program only because > > it is written in ocaml", but if it is better than other talk approach > > ... why not? > > Dimitri wants it, so we'll ship it. Ok, I hope in a future larger user base, but this is a good start ... ;) > > OCamlmake-o-matic ok, but from the description of OCamlCVS seems that > > there is also a library, have you checked it? > > Yes, I was wrong indeed, but I'm not in favour of slipping > OCamlCVS. Uhm, we probably should have one "ocamlcvs" package, and one libcvs-ocaml-... package depending on each other as needed. But probably isn't a good idea to have cameleon depending on ocamlcvs (note this is based on the assumption that other tools doesn't need, or even use, ocamlcvs ... If this assumption is wrong cameleon should safely depend on ocamlcvs). > Using the Uploaders field in debian/control and subscribing to the > package via the PTS should suffice. Ack, I have to read something about that, I didn't know the "Uploaders" field and I have never used the PTS. > > If not, we can work directly on the upstream CVS, obviously with the > > upstream consensus, what do you think about it, Maxence? > > That would be ideal. Maxence seems to be ignoring us :-))) > I'll come up with a first draft in one or two days. Really thanks. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney
Attachment:
pgpxFffFSlAjR.pgp
Description: PGP signature