On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 02:49:55PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > Sure, but there is really no other scheme. Notice that some of the
> > package don't really need a library version embedded, so we can just
> > have, for example, libzip-ocaml-3.07, which will not be all that ugly
> > after all.
> My packages will only support the latest version, so I won't use
> that anyway.
Ok, nobody could force you to do work you wont like to do. But, assuming
that we will choose this not-yet-approved solution, is a problem for you
to name your binary packages including also the -<ocaml_version> part?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/
" 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:
pgpAahTI0wUlu.pgp
Description: PGP signature