Re: camlp4 syntax extensions' naming convention

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:24:58PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:05:23PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> > > Sounds fine to me.
> > I've one problem with it : does camlp4 file are really library ? They
> > are mostly macro only needed at compile time... I prefer <foo>-camlp4
> > because of this.
> 
> Well, yes, they are library. The difference is that camlp4 libraries are
> required by campl4 itself as a source parser and not by the user
> programs.  The point is what we would like to emphasize in package name.
> 
> Still from the user point of view you're probably right and <foo>-camlp4
> is probably a better solution than mine.
> 
> Other thoughts?

Well, there is always the camlp4-<foo> possibility too, which has the
benefit of showing all together in dpkg -l output and such.

Friendly,

Sven Luther