On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 12:30:16AM +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> Maybe i am wrong but i think it is best to keep dh_ocaml out of
> debhelper. I feel it should be better for made it evolve at will...
> Maybe it can become a real package ?
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> I agree. I saw that a dh-lisp package (a "debhelper add-on" for
> Common Lisp) just entered the archive, so there's certainly precedent.
>
> The only downside I see is that OCaml packages that use it will have to
> build-depend on dh-ocaml in addition to debhelper. Are there other
> advantages or disadvantages?
dh_ocaml has been tought from the beginning to be a part of debhelper as
it heavily uses debhelper perl library. Keeping it out of the debhelper
package would mean take care of the compatibility with that underlying
library; keeping it insider of debhelper would mean that someone else
(probably JoeyH), would take care of it.
Note also that dh_ocaml is the debhelper part of the automatic
dependency handling mechanism, the non-debhelper part is ocaml-md5sums
which is meant to be keep outside debhelper. I don't think the debhelper
part of dh_ocaml will change much in the future.
About the dh-lisp package it is a rather isolate example, all other
major language-related debhelpers are maintained inside debhelper:
dh_perl, dh_python. Is a rather common convention.
I say: just do as everyone else, start shipping it as a part of
debhelper, if in the future we will encounter out of date issues or slow
release roundtrip we can move it out.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature