Re: splitting up the ocaml package: summary
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:59:59PM +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:21:49PM -0400, Mike Furr wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 14:20, sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org wrote:
> > > liblabltk-ocaml labltk stublibs
> > > liblabltk-ocaml-dev liblabltk-ocaml labltk header
> > I wouldn't mind those, except it might not be clear if this was a
> > different Tk lib than that distributed with ocaml.
> >
> > > libbase-extra-ocaml extra stublibs
> > > libbase-extra-ocaml-dev libbase-extra-ocaml extra header
> > I think this name makes no sense. having 'base' and 'extra' together
> > is confusing.
> >
> > > libgraphics-ocaml graphics stublibs
> > > libgraphics-ocaml-dev graphics header
> > Since these would contain only ~5 files each, this seems a little excessive.
> > The graphics stuff should be combined with the labltk.
> >
> > Well, I'm just about done with the patch using the names as before. It
> > isn't too much of a pain to change the them, but it will be annoying. I
> > don't see the need to change.
> > --
>
> Hello,
>
> Well, what about :
> libcompilers-extra-ocaml in place of libbase-extra-ocaml.
Huh, what exactly you will have in it ? I don't really see the need of
this one, so suspisions are that it is an uneeded split.
> For the split graphics/labltk, we could include graphics in
> liblabltk-ocaml, but we need to state this in short/long description...
Better find another name if we are going to do this. I would oppose the
libgraphics living in the liblabltk package, altough a separate one for
each of them would be ok. I prefer the ocaml and ocaml-nox separation,
without need to go too much into little package. Furthermore, i believe
upstream would like less splitting more than too much.
BTW, Mike, why you don't just open an account on alioth, and create a
branch for your stuff in the subversion repo ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: